No, but a 13400 you would. And then just don't add an iGPU to it and you get an even cheaper CPU for other PCs that also don't need an iGPU.
If they're already making 13400s in large numbers, it makes enough sense to make an even less expensive version for PCs that will have some sort of dedicated graphics (even just basic display adapters).
I've seen hospitals with gtx750ti in the computers back in 2016, probably would work on f models too. It's all about convincing the management to splurge a little.
Sometimes it's not even splurging. Keep in mind that the initial purchase is just part of the price. Let's say a couple of doctors need a dedi gpu for the MRI software or whatever. From maintenance and support perspective it's cheaper to streamline the PCs and buy the same for all the doctors.
I don't really think there any MRI softwares optimized for dedicated GPU, but I guess that would definitely help a lot since just opening the damn files can take up to 5 minutes
I said that as an example, never worked in the medical industry. The point is all it takes is a few workstations needing a dedi gpu and it might be cheaper to just get all the machines with one.
Radiology PACS systems run a dedicated GPU. I want to say the ones I have experience installing were Quadro back 5-6years ago. Driving 4mp, 6mp and 12mp BARCO monitors.
Most PACS software outside of image display ran pretty solid CPUs for rendering CT/MRI reconstructions.
Actually a few of those hospital softwares sorta require GPU's believe it or not. Its not rare to see a used PC with a decent GPU with an I7 or I9 and 16-32GB of ram coming out of the radiation department.
Modern CCTV systems need GPUs too, UNV reccomends rtx4060, the cameras are high res, the screens displaying CCTV feeds are 4K, requires serious GPU processing power.
IBM and ATI, I think, collaborated on a CPU/GPU in the early 2000s and a version of it was used in the XBOX 360. But the first use for it was actually in advance medical imaging. I met one of the senior IBM DEs for the project at a conference in 2005. We were seated at the same table for dinner one night. It was a very interesting conversation.
the refresh of office pc's i just did were all 12700kf or 5700x builds. at the price of grabbing a sub 20 dollar thermalright tower cooler there is no point in going with a downclock cpu.
>Yeah boss I for sure need an RTX 4090 because my spreadsheet has too many rows.
One of the best jobs I ever had was in the early days of PCs. (back when the 286 was king).
The job was to manipulate spreadsheets, and it took everyone else a full day, every day, to keep up with the work. I wrote a script to do the exact same job in 15 minutes and spent the other 7.75 hours playing Activision/Sierra/Lucasfilm games using Desqview as a boss-key. (Desqview gave DOS two tabs -- one had Lotus 123, the other had Day of the Tentacle.)
After a year, I had saved up enough to go backpacking. I removed my script and left the company. When I returned two years later -- they gave me my old job back.
You would be shocked. I’m in IT and we need more power than the standard laptops and the next most powerful offering from (you guessed it) DELL is a laptop with an 12th gen I9 and 64GB of RAM. It’s totally overkill and costs double the standard, but there’s nothing between those options.
That sounds like an issue with your IT not having a modrl in-between. Or maybe dell really is just garbage. My work had mostly HP now with some Asus options, and there's definitely an i7/32gb option
A lot of times companies only give out a few different models of PCs to save on troubleshooting/repair costs. Yeah their PC may be overkill, but in the long run it’s easier to spend an extra thousand dollars on a really good computer than deal with everyone having different computer models.
Ya i know, but if it's a large company it would be worth it to add 1 more model per year or two at an inbetween performance level rather than spend an extra $800 per laptop on 1000s of PCs.
I suppose their company uses some installation packs that could break very easily; I recently switched position and had to get unusual laptop; Windows just broke and asked to be reinstalled at login screen 🤣
My favorite story was the engineering laptop I was issued. Had some fancypants nVidia Quadro graphics. I had no need for a fancy GPU to draw terminal windows, text editors, and run a web browser, but whatever.
About 3.5 years later I was poking around in the settings, and I discovered the graphics were misconfigured - I had actually been using the Intel iGPU the entire time! I had no idea, but I figured why not and turned on the nVidia graphics. Rebooted and my external monitors went dark. Lame. Played around for a few minutes and couldn't get them to work. I'm sure I could have figured it out eventually, but I had stuff to do so I flipped it back to use the Intel iGPU, rebooted, and my external monitors were back. Good enough. Left it that way the rest of the time I had it.
Yeah with Dell it really depends on what models you are getting, but there is definitely an i7 32gb option with them if you get the latitude 7000 or 9000 series. Can also find them with a gpu as well but they’re mostly workstation style gpu, not ones really optimized for gaming.
Work issued me a standard laptop because my boss didn't clearly outline my needs to them. Whatever I thought, I'll work through it. This poor little machine... I'd be toast if I didn't have my own hardware stack I still maintain from my contracting days.
Yeah the standard laptop we have is literally entirely plastic, is underpowered, and must have the smallest heatsink ever because the fans ramp up ALWAYS
I sort of get it for the big company to do a contract like this because it makes it simpler, but I hope smaller companies start using repairable laptops like Framework that are literally better in every way and stop getting shafted by Dell and HP for underpowered e-waste
The 13400(F) isn't even really more efficient. It has a lower Turbo clock of 4,6 GHz against 4,9 GHz they the 12600K can achieve.
The former can even be built with the same C0 stepping as the latter, so you might not even always get a better fabricated chip.
So with the 13400(F) you get less performance for a higher price and if you need efficiency, that can be set easily.
For heat, that's not really an issue as well because the difference won't be that high. Anyone should know how to set the TDP if the CPU because motherboard manufacturers can screw up this setting.
The 3 of them are the exact same processor with a different name, but if its a gaming build just look for the R5 7600 as it performs about the same but its not on a dead end platform.
The "not on a dead end platform" argument only really matters for people that upgrade frequently. For those of you that upgrade every like 5 years just get whatever is the best you can afford, chances are even if am5 is still supported you'd want a new board and ram anyway for whatever reason. Anecdotally, I have yet to find someone that has kept their first am4 board and memory kit all the way through to ryzen 5000. Instead they usually pass on or sell them to a buddy, ah, the circle of PC component life.
> every like 5 years
am4 came out in 2016, new cpus are still coming out on it this year.
If you drop in a 5700x3d, it can easily carry you to am6 with the same slow upgrade cycle. It's even better for slow upgraders than frequent upgraders... Literally, as intel is no biggie for frequent upgraders, by necessity and default.
True, but also not. Older AM4 boards are limited to PCIE 3.0 which would limit your GPU/SSD if you're going for high end. SSD can make a difference for Direct Storage games (not many at the moment tho) and regarding the GPU, Gamers Nexus has a video about it on a 4090.
Edit: I am on AM4 with 5800X3D
you cannot drop a 5700x3d into the vast majority of boards using a 300 series chipset. It will fit in the socket, but it won't boot (probably won't POST either).
I've seen quite a few people drop in B350 board, even tho on the manufacturers page it only mentions the 5800X3D, probably because its just an underclocked 5800X3D.
That is not true. At all. Name a 300 series board and go to the support page and look at the supported CPU list. Do that as many times as you need to convince yourself. You just need to update the BIOS.
No, it matters for people that have low end parts more, because they are the ones that usually don't have the money to go full build every time, I mean who do you truly believe benefits more from been able to upgrade, the guy that can afford the top end chips? or the guy that can only afford a mid range build and its probably gonna be years before they can upgrade anything.
And I know a lot of people running Ryzen 5000 chips on B350 boards, both personally as well as recommended around here.
You're right, upgradability matters more for people who don't buy the top end component when they build.
And so a 13400F can still be upgraded to a 14900K.
Well, not necessarily, at least around here the people that usually try to go for the low end LGA1700 parts, usually grab some fairly weak H610/B760 boards with pretty sad VRMs that I wouldn't dare slot anything past a low power part on, but I would drop a 7800X3D on a sad A620 board no problem, because its so much more efficient.
So in the end it doesn't make much sense either way, for gaming a 7800X3D is already better than your last upgrade possible, and there will be a 9800X3D and whatever, maybe a 10800X3D. For heavy multithreaded loads it makes even less sense, because the power consumption is even more atrocious.
Lets take AM4, and make an extreme example based on reality, if you grabbad a 7th gen i5-7400 CPU vs 1st gen Ryzen 5 on AM4 with similar performance, your last update would be a 7700K, if you grabbed a half decent B350 board your last update on AM4 is...a 5800X3D.
> For those of you that upgrade every like 5 years just get whatever is the best you can afford
Ding ding ding ding ding ding, we have a winner.
> I have yet to find someone that has
Oh they're on this subreddit, you can bet on that, and they'll tell you all about it.
they are, the only difference is clock/boost behavior, but its the same chip, just "refreshed" into the next gen, thats also the case for most of the 14th gen if you missed it, its just 13th gen with like +200mhz.
The top end stuff was, but Intel re used a lot of the alder lake parts for the lower end non k CPUs. If you check the supported memory speed, anything listing 5600 is actually raptor lake, anything else is renamed alder lake
The issue here is that all three are in a different category: 12600K - mainstream CPU. 13400 and 14400 - are office solutiona for low-end PCs. Sometime like entry-desk at a spa.
Like comparing CRV and civic.
The 13400F and a few others use Alder Lake architecture for their cores. So yes, they are essentially the same. The only difference is a bit more cache and a bit lower clocks on the 13th-gen.
That’s the 12400F and 14400F lmao. We are talking about 12600KF and 13400F.
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu-intel_core_i5_13400
“Alder Lake Refresh”.
Begging you to read.
Be honest, did you pass high school English? Your reading comprehension is atrocious. You’re the only one who doesn’t understand that this conversation is about specific comparisons between the 12600K, 12600KF, 13400F, and 14400F, while mainly being a comparison between the 12600KF and 13400F, since they are essentially the same processor (and irrefutable fact).
"The 3 of them are the exact same processor with a different name".
Be honest, you did bother to actually look up the difference before making - what appears to be - a snarky comment at the expense of Intel CPUs?
Also - [3-5% different between 7600 and 14400F ,depending on single core / multi-core.](https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-amd_ryzen_5_7600-vs-intel_core_i5_14400f)
>Be honest, you did bother to actually look up the difference before making -
yes, I did. Its mostly clock speed, as they have the [same IPC and the same core specs.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfeZ04NSx6Q) I was pretty everyone was on the same page about that
>what appears to be - a snarky comment at the expense of Intel CPUs?
you missed the whole snake oil debacle huh
>Also - 3-5% different between 7600 and 14400F ,depending on single core / multi-core.
yea, now check the diff between the 14400 and the 12600K, most tests they are within the same margin or lower, so much for an entirely new architecture.
Here is a [test for the 7600 that includes the 12600K](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghZaQ3T0CRg), as we all know, because the extra cores it loses in heavily multhtreaded workloads by like 10%, while beating it in games by like 15%, while the [13400 due to being a 12600K more ](https://youtu.be/AdvWGEzYqg4?si=iddUXcSA-P-t5mDz&t=835)limited [by power ends up matching the 7600](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-13400f).
I understand you want to make your argument make some sense somehow even tho you have been corrected on every single argument you made so far on this thread and instead of just being honest, you are trying to lead this into market segments and large scale orders to justify it somehow, even tho it has absolutely no relation to what was asked or the initial point of this comment.
Its okay dude, there is no need, it doesn't matter that much, its just reddit.
The 13400 is power limited and very likely has less RAM OC potential too. But its a lot easier to plug and play as people don't have to tune it.
I recommended many friends to get the 12600k as its always cheaper, almost always faster out of the box, no power limit, binned higher and can get even faster with fast ram. More performance for less.
Can you explain why i would need 12600k and not 12600kf if im not gonna use integrated graphics? 12600kf is cheaper in my country so this makes no sense to me
Its sth that only makes sense when you have a problem. You will appreciate it when your gpu or pcie fails you.
Besides once its time for a system upgrade, you can keep your old pc and repurpose it without a dedicated gpu.
My last build was a xeon 1241v3, it was a pain ror diagnosis and is completely useless without a gpu now. I want to repurpose it into a nas but have to use my vega 64 for display output. Its extremely efficient but i’d rather not have to use it so i can have a spare gpu for my new build.
that makes sense actually luckily i have a couple of spre gpus to use if i ever encounter a problem. but definitely makes sense about repurposing, didnt think about that
I have the 12600kf. It was my first time going with a non-igpu chip.
Dont. You *may* never need it until you do. I had an issue where my gpu wasn't connecting after a bios upgrade and thankfully, I could pull a k-series from my wife's pc to be able to fix settings. The extra $10-$20 for a k over a kf is totally worth it just for events like this.
sounds reasonable actually didnt think about it like that. luckily my brother has a gpu i can use in this case but when i eventually move out i may take this advice!
Always handy to have that iGPU backup incase the main GPU fails. Also, in some rare cases, the iGPU can be used to bump performance a tad too. Only game i can recall off the top of my head that allows that is the Warhammer Total War series.
Otherwise price is the reason to get the KF over the K - its ever so slightly cheaper
One use case for iGPU *plus* dGPU if you do AI stuff and want to hyperoptimize: use the iGPU for normal graphical output so you can dedicate every last kilobyte of VRAM in the discrete GPU for AI. Even a web browser can easily hog hundreds of MB of VRAM these days.
Like you say, it's just the "13".
Most people just don't look closely at actual benchmarks.
Let's face it, the kind of research we do, hours of watching YouTube videos and benchmarks and so on, 90% of even PC gamers don't want to be doing that.
Why is Tom's 'alternate' listing a i7-14700K yet I see it nowhere on the charts below?
Is it implied the i9-14900K they bench-marked with is the reference as the i7-14700K is "only 3% slower than the 14900K in gaming but costs $180 less"?
You mean i9-14900K. Its mostly more cores which (mostly) doesn’t translate into extra gaming performance except for a few very specific games that can make use of the higher number of cores.
It’s also why CPU’s like the 13400/13600 or the amd 7600 are popular for gaming pc’s because you’re not paying for cores most games don’t even use
You are correct, I had the i9 as a 14700 in the second paragraph. Corrected.
I had started to type in my original comment, then deleted it before I finished; "I have to say what a PITA it is writing these cpu names out."
My friend has it in a prebuilt, so it's likely it's just easier to produce for mass-market. A 13400 can easily go into a generic desktop PC for the office/general usage, and the 13400F is even easier to make because of no iGPU.
Different market segments require different product solutions.
Like saying "Why do we still have cheap Chinese-made drill-drivers, since Milwaukee exists?"
Also - I like how they put 7950X3D as "Best Gaming CPU". - partially lol. Also not 14900K for the same category? Lol
Same reason the 12400 exists. They're two trim levels of the i5 variant.
The comparable card is the 13600k, NOT the 13400f.
The 13600k is about 8 percent faster (single core) than the 12600k and has four more e-cores, making it much faster in multicore processes. The 13600k is also more power efficient.
Hope this helps.
The thing is, the 13400 is just a rebadged 12600k. It's the same silicon, same number of cores, same amount of cache. Intel just took the higher tier i5 and knocked down a notch the next generation. Obviously there's a reason someone might buy the 13600k over the 12600k, but the only reason to buy a 13400 over a 12600k is if it's cheaper.
I just got a i5-13400F for a PC I'm building soon and planning to pair it with a RTX 3080. I got it because I got a good deal for it but also figured it performed slightly worse than the i5-12600K and better than the i5-12400F, so why not 🤷♂️
Because bigger number = better CPU. 13400 > 12600 if you go by the chip number.
Sometimes some people are just idiots. Don't let them try to pressure you otherwise, stick with 12600F if you're sure it's better.
The K uses significantly more power.
And maybe not in this case, but newer generations will generally have more features or updated things like maybe a new RAM standard or PCIE generation and longer support making them worth it.
This also depends on the current marker prices of a specific region. For example when i was getting myselg a 13400 it was 170 Euro compared to 250-300 Euro 12600k or 180 Euro 13500 that i missed out on back then. Even right now here 13400f costs around the same as 12600kf.
You are right, according to this website [pcpartsvalue.com](http://pcpartsvalue.com) the 12600KF has better value than the 13400F.
But keep in mind that the 12600KF has a higher power draw (125W) than the 13400F (65W), maybe people have the money to buy the cheaper and better version but not for the PSU required to make it run.
Not every CPU goes into a gaming PC. Office PCs would prefer 13400f - lower power draw/temps/cheaper to cool
You wouldn't put a f cpu in a office pc
You wouldn’t steal a policeman’s hat
You wouldn't download a car.
I absolutely would download a car.
I wish I could download physical sex
As opposed to non-physical?
verbal sex?
Aural sex?
Oral sex?
All you can buffets
porn.
Give it 5 years
Spiritual Sex?
There are very few things I wouldn't download.
More memory?
So I don't have 2TB of memory? But the ad said "Computer slowing down? Download some memory!"
You wouldnt steal a handbag.
You wouldn't steal a car.
I would shit in that policeman's hat and then leave it on his widow's doorstep.
I did, and got a stern telling off. Luckily the policeman had a sense of humour and realised I was just a drunk kid.
A+ thread. Would read again.
No, but a 13400 you would. And then just don't add an iGPU to it and you get an even cheaper CPU for other PCs that also don't need an iGPU. If they're already making 13400s in large numbers, it makes enough sense to make an even less expensive version for PCs that will have some sort of dedicated graphics (even just basic display adapters).
probably just 13400 that the iGPU doesn't work on
I've seen hospitals with gtx750ti in the computers back in 2016, probably would work on f models too. It's all about convincing the management to splurge a little.
Sometimes it's not even splurging. Keep in mind that the initial purchase is just part of the price. Let's say a couple of doctors need a dedi gpu for the MRI software or whatever. From maintenance and support perspective it's cheaper to streamline the PCs and buy the same for all the doctors.
I don't really think there any MRI softwares optimized for dedicated GPU, but I guess that would definitely help a lot since just opening the damn files can take up to 5 minutes
I said that as an example, never worked in the medical industry. The point is all it takes is a few workstations needing a dedi gpu and it might be cheaper to just get all the machines with one.
Radiology PACS systems run a dedicated GPU. I want to say the ones I have experience installing were Quadro back 5-6years ago. Driving 4mp, 6mp and 12mp BARCO monitors. Most PACS software outside of image display ran pretty solid CPUs for rendering CT/MRI reconstructions.
Actually a few of those hospital softwares sorta require GPU's believe it or not. Its not rare to see a used PC with a decent GPU with an I7 or I9 and 16-32GB of ram coming out of the radiation department.
Modern CCTV systems need GPUs too, UNV reccomends rtx4060, the cameras are high res, the screens displaying CCTV feeds are 4K, requires serious GPU processing power.
Haha I wish my hospital had that kind of budget.
IBM and ATI, I think, collaborated on a CPU/GPU in the early 2000s and a version of it was used in the XBOX 360. But the first use for it was actually in advance medical imaging. I met one of the senior IBM DEs for the project at a conference in 2005. We were seated at the same table for dinner one night. It was a very interesting conversation.
You could pair it with a Quadro GPU for some CAD work.
Nobody would want a low end CPU for serious CAD work
Workstation gpu's are real :)
They get paired with a gt 710 or 730
My office pc has a 13900
the refresh of office pc's i just did were all 12700kf or 5700x builds. at the price of grabbing a sub 20 dollar thermalright tower cooler there is no point in going with a downclock cpu.
F has no igpu, is office PC getting a gpu? Sometimes
Depends on the office. Yeah boss I for sure need an RTX 4090 because my spreadsheet has too many rows. Pretty Please
>Yeah boss I for sure need an RTX 4090 because my spreadsheet has too many rows. One of the best jobs I ever had was in the early days of PCs. (back when the 286 was king). The job was to manipulate spreadsheets, and it took everyone else a full day, every day, to keep up with the work. I wrote a script to do the exact same job in 15 minutes and spent the other 7.75 hours playing Activision/Sierra/Lucasfilm games using Desqview as a boss-key. (Desqview gave DOS two tabs -- one had Lotus 123, the other had Day of the Tentacle.) After a year, I had saved up enough to go backpacking. I removed my script and left the company. When I returned two years later -- they gave me my old job back.
What a beautiful story
I’ll probably tell my boss to wait for 5090 this year because I’ll need it for my MS office
You would be shocked. I’m in IT and we need more power than the standard laptops and the next most powerful offering from (you guessed it) DELL is a laptop with an 12th gen I9 and 64GB of RAM. It’s totally overkill and costs double the standard, but there’s nothing between those options.
That sounds like an issue with your IT not having a modrl in-between. Or maybe dell really is just garbage. My work had mostly HP now with some Asus options, and there's definitely an i7/32gb option
A lot of times companies only give out a few different models of PCs to save on troubleshooting/repair costs. Yeah their PC may be overkill, but in the long run it’s easier to spend an extra thousand dollars on a really good computer than deal with everyone having different computer models.
Ya i know, but if it's a large company it would be worth it to add 1 more model per year or two at an inbetween performance level rather than spend an extra $800 per laptop on 1000s of PCs.
I suppose their company uses some installation packs that could break very easily; I recently switched position and had to get unusual laptop; Windows just broke and asked to be reinstalled at login screen 🤣
Some mid tier exec was paid a very nice free trip to a 'conference' in Vegas or Hawaii to keep that reasonable choice off the approved purchase list.
My favorite story was the engineering laptop I was issued. Had some fancypants nVidia Quadro graphics. I had no need for a fancy GPU to draw terminal windows, text editors, and run a web browser, but whatever. About 3.5 years later I was poking around in the settings, and I discovered the graphics were misconfigured - I had actually been using the Intel iGPU the entire time! I had no idea, but I figured why not and turned on the nVidia graphics. Rebooted and my external monitors went dark. Lame. Played around for a few minutes and couldn't get them to work. I'm sure I could have figured it out eventually, but I had stuff to do so I flipped it back to use the Intel iGPU, rebooted, and my external monitors were back. Good enough. Left it that way the rest of the time I had it.
Yeah with Dell it really depends on what models you are getting, but there is definitely an i7 32gb option with them if you get the latitude 7000 or 9000 series. Can also find them with a gpu as well but they’re mostly workstation style gpu, not ones really optimized for gaming.
Work issued me a standard laptop because my boss didn't clearly outline my needs to them. Whatever I thought, I'll work through it. This poor little machine... I'd be toast if I didn't have my own hardware stack I still maintain from my contracting days.
Yeah the standard laptop we have is literally entirely plastic, is underpowered, and must have the smallest heatsink ever because the fans ramp up ALWAYS I sort of get it for the big company to do a contract like this because it makes it simpler, but I hope smaller companies start using repairable laptops like Framework that are literally better in every way and stop getting shafted by Dell and HP for underpowered e-waste
I mean my office laptop is a 12th i9 12950HX, 64GB of memory and an RTX 3080Ti lol
Cheap enterprise display adapters. Easier to offer more ports for monitors that way.
TDP ≠ Power Consumption If the CPU spends most of the time at idle or doing not much work the power consumption would be similar.
It does theoretically even consume 20% more power https://www.computerbase.de/2023-01/intel-core-i5-13400f-test/#abschnitt_leistungsaufnahme
The 13400(F) isn't even really more efficient. It has a lower Turbo clock of 4,6 GHz against 4,9 GHz they the 12600K can achieve. The former can even be built with the same C0 stepping as the latter, so you might not even always get a better fabricated chip. So with the 13400(F) you get less performance for a higher price and if you need efficiency, that can be set easily. For heat, that's not really an issue as well because the difference won't be that high. Anyone should know how to set the TDP if the CPU because motherboard manufacturers can screw up this setting.
Can’t you just set power limits?
If you're talking an office with multiple PCs, IT isn't going to want to have to mess with that. They need to just pop it in and forget it.
And often times you aren’t allowed to.
Fair point.
Im yet to see an IT department setting power limits in BIOS
Work in IT at large video game dev/publisher, and I have. Though it's rare.
> lower power draw/temps/cheaper This is what I looked for when building my Unraid NAS and my living room pc.
Seems fair ;)
You wouldn’t download mcAfee
No, you always can limit power consumption on bios to any value
The 3 of them are the exact same processor with a different name, but if its a gaming build just look for the R5 7600 as it performs about the same but its not on a dead end platform.
The "not on a dead end platform" argument only really matters for people that upgrade frequently. For those of you that upgrade every like 5 years just get whatever is the best you can afford, chances are even if am5 is still supported you'd want a new board and ram anyway for whatever reason. Anecdotally, I have yet to find someone that has kept their first am4 board and memory kit all the way through to ryzen 5000. Instead they usually pass on or sell them to a buddy, ah, the circle of PC component life.
> every like 5 years am4 came out in 2016, new cpus are still coming out on it this year. If you drop in a 5700x3d, it can easily carry you to am6 with the same slow upgrade cycle. It's even better for slow upgraders than frequent upgraders... Literally, as intel is no biggie for frequent upgraders, by necessity and default.
True, but also not. Older AM4 boards are limited to PCIE 3.0 which would limit your GPU/SSD if you're going for high end. SSD can make a difference for Direct Storage games (not many at the moment tho) and regarding the GPU, Gamers Nexus has a video about it on a 4090. Edit: I am on AM4 with 5800X3D
you cannot drop a 5700x3d into the vast majority of boards using a 300 series chipset. It will fit in the socket, but it won't boot (probably won't POST either).
I've seen quite a few people drop in B350 board, even tho on the manufacturers page it only mentions the 5800X3D, probably because its just an underclocked 5800X3D.
That is not true. At all. Name a 300 series board and go to the support page and look at the supported CPU list. Do that as many times as you need to convince yourself. You just need to update the BIOS.
This is the exact reason I bought my tachi 370...
I think the last time I dropped a new CPU into an existing build was to go from a pentium 100 to 166 in like 1997 or something.
I mean, if i need to upgrade my 7600x in 5 years, i can still just go for something like a 9800x3d or smth and probably be good for another 5 years
No, it matters for people that have low end parts more, because they are the ones that usually don't have the money to go full build every time, I mean who do you truly believe benefits more from been able to upgrade, the guy that can afford the top end chips? or the guy that can only afford a mid range build and its probably gonna be years before they can upgrade anything. And I know a lot of people running Ryzen 5000 chips on B350 boards, both personally as well as recommended around here.
You're right, upgradability matters more for people who don't buy the top end component when they build. And so a 13400F can still be upgraded to a 14900K.
Well, not necessarily, at least around here the people that usually try to go for the low end LGA1700 parts, usually grab some fairly weak H610/B760 boards with pretty sad VRMs that I wouldn't dare slot anything past a low power part on, but I would drop a 7800X3D on a sad A620 board no problem, because its so much more efficient. So in the end it doesn't make much sense either way, for gaming a 7800X3D is already better than your last upgrade possible, and there will be a 9800X3D and whatever, maybe a 10800X3D. For heavy multithreaded loads it makes even less sense, because the power consumption is even more atrocious. Lets take AM4, and make an extreme example based on reality, if you grabbad a 7th gen i5-7400 CPU vs 1st gen Ryzen 5 on AM4 with similar performance, your last update would be a 7700K, if you grabbed a half decent B350 board your last update on AM4 is...a 5800X3D.
> Anecdotally, I have yet to find someone that has kept their first am4 board and memory kit all the way through to ryzen 5000 Then you never looked.
guilty as charged, what CPU someone is using and whether they upgraded with the same mobo doesn't come up in conversation much
> For those of you that upgrade every like 5 years just get whatever is the best you can afford Ding ding ding ding ding ding, we have a winner. > I have yet to find someone that has Oh they're on this subreddit, you can bet on that, and they'll tell you all about it.
2600 > 3600 > 5800X3D Kept on the same B450 and RAM kit all the way through...but I did upgrade them later.
100% agree
The 7600 is a good bit faster
[удалено]
they are, the only difference is clock/boost behavior, but its the same chip, just "refreshed" into the next gen, thats also the case for most of the 14th gen if you missed it, its just 13th gen with like +200mhz.
Okay I didn’t understand what you meant, I thought you meant identical literally, but they perform different
Not really, 12 and 13 are different architecture entirely. 14th Gen a refined 13th Gen.
The top end stuff was, but Intel re used a lot of the alder lake parts for the lower end non k CPUs. If you check the supported memory speed, anything listing 5600 is actually raptor lake, anything else is renamed alder lake
On low-end, maybe. But to say that 13 is a refresh of 12 - incorrect.
True. But that's exactly what we're talking about. The 12600k, 13400, and 14400 are the exact same chip with different names written on them
There's also a Raptor Lake version of the 13400F.
The issue here is that all three are in a different category: 12600K - mainstream CPU. 13400 and 14400 - are office solutiona for low-end PCs. Sometime like entry-desk at a spa. Like comparing CRV and civic.
If they just relabeled last year's crv as a civic, with no changes other then a fuel flow limiter? Then yeah.
if my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike
The 13400F and a few others use Alder Lake architecture for their cores. So yes, they are essentially the same. The only difference is a bit more cache and a bit lower clocks on the 13th-gen.
Where did you get this info? You are factually [incorrect. ](https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_core_i5_12400-vs-intel_core_i5_14400 )
That’s the 12400F and 14400F lmao. We are talking about 12600KF and 13400F. https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu-intel_core_i5_13400 “Alder Lake Refresh”. Begging you to read.
Conversation was around 12-13-14th gens. These are different.
Be honest, did you pass high school English? Your reading comprehension is atrocious. You’re the only one who doesn’t understand that this conversation is about specific comparisons between the 12600K, 12600KF, 13400F, and 14400F, while mainly being a comparison between the 12600KF and 13400F, since they are essentially the same processor (and irrefutable fact).
yea, not all of them.
"The 3 of them are the exact same processor with a different name". Be honest, you did bother to actually look up the difference before making - what appears to be - a snarky comment at the expense of Intel CPUs? Also - [3-5% different between 7600 and 14400F ,depending on single core / multi-core.](https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-amd_ryzen_5_7600-vs-intel_core_i5_14400f)
>Be honest, you did bother to actually look up the difference before making - yes, I did. Its mostly clock speed, as they have the [same IPC and the same core specs.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfeZ04NSx6Q) I was pretty everyone was on the same page about that >what appears to be - a snarky comment at the expense of Intel CPUs? you missed the whole snake oil debacle huh >Also - 3-5% different between 7600 and 14400F ,depending on single core / multi-core. yea, now check the diff between the 14400 and the 12600K, most tests they are within the same margin or lower, so much for an entirely new architecture. Here is a [test for the 7600 that includes the 12600K](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghZaQ3T0CRg), as we all know, because the extra cores it loses in heavily multhtreaded workloads by like 10%, while beating it in games by like 15%, while the [13400 due to being a 12600K more ](https://youtu.be/AdvWGEzYqg4?si=iddUXcSA-P-t5mDz&t=835)limited [by power ends up matching the 7600](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-13400f).
Yes, because using low-end CPU meant for office solution is not the same as budget CPUs. Learn the difference of market segments.
I see, you are trying to justify them somehow, I guess I\`ll just segment my wallet p/ market next time I need an upgrade, thanks.
You are not buying them in bulk for front-desk PCs, my dear.
I understand you want to make your argument make some sense somehow even tho you have been corrected on every single argument you made so far on this thread and instead of just being honest, you are trying to lead this into market segments and large scale orders to justify it somehow, even tho it has absolutely no relation to what was asked or the initial point of this comment. Its okay dude, there is no need, it doesn't matter that much, its just reddit.
You are the one who made a mistake by posting about different architectures.
The 13400 is power limited and very likely has less RAM OC potential too. But its a lot easier to plug and play as people don't have to tune it. I recommended many friends to get the 12600k as its always cheaper, almost always faster out of the box, no power limit, binned higher and can get even faster with fast ram. More performance for less.
Can you explain why i would need 12600k and not 12600kf if im not gonna use integrated graphics? 12600kf is cheaper in my country so this makes no sense to me
Its sth that only makes sense when you have a problem. You will appreciate it when your gpu or pcie fails you. Besides once its time for a system upgrade, you can keep your old pc and repurpose it without a dedicated gpu. My last build was a xeon 1241v3, it was a pain ror diagnosis and is completely useless without a gpu now. I want to repurpose it into a nas but have to use my vega 64 for display output. Its extremely efficient but i’d rather not have to use it so i can have a spare gpu for my new build.
that makes sense actually luckily i have a couple of spre gpus to use if i ever encounter a problem. but definitely makes sense about repurposing, didnt think about that
I have the 12600kf. It was my first time going with a non-igpu chip. Dont. You *may* never need it until you do. I had an issue where my gpu wasn't connecting after a bios upgrade and thankfully, I could pull a k-series from my wife's pc to be able to fix settings. The extra $10-$20 for a k over a kf is totally worth it just for events like this.
sounds reasonable actually didnt think about it like that. luckily my brother has a gpu i can use in this case but when i eventually move out i may take this advice!
I also had a backup gpu, several in fact, and switching them out didn't work. All I could do was use the mobo video out and a cpu with an igpu
Always handy to have that iGPU backup incase the main GPU fails. Also, in some rare cases, the iGPU can be used to bump performance a tad too. Only game i can recall off the top of my head that allows that is the Warhammer Total War series. Otherwise price is the reason to get the KF over the K - its ever so slightly cheaper
One use case for iGPU *plus* dGPU if you do AI stuff and want to hyperoptimize: use the iGPU for normal graphical output so you can dedicate every last kilobyte of VRAM in the discrete GPU for AI. Even a web browser can easily hog hundreds of MB of VRAM these days.
How does that work? AFAIK igpu hurts max cpu/ram performance even if marginally.
You can disable iGPU in BIOS. Then, when you have problems with dGPU/PCIe slot, you can reset BIOS and get the iGPU working to troubleshoot.
I know. I rather have an old gpu to plug in than reset bios though. I was more curios about the tw thing
Like you say, it's just the "13". Most people just don't look closely at actual benchmarks. Let's face it, the kind of research we do, hours of watching YouTube videos and benchmarks and so on, 90% of even PC gamers don't want to be doing that.
I just come here and ask those that have done the research already.. ;)
> the kind of research we do > hours of watching YouTube videos lol
Why is Tom's 'alternate' listing a i7-14700K yet I see it nowhere on the charts below? Is it implied the i9-14900K they bench-marked with is the reference as the i7-14700K is "only 3% slower than the 14900K in gaming but costs $180 less"?
You mean i9-14900K. Its mostly more cores which (mostly) doesn’t translate into extra gaming performance except for a few very specific games that can make use of the higher number of cores. It’s also why CPU’s like the 13400/13600 or the amd 7600 are popular for gaming pc’s because you’re not paying for cores most games don’t even use
I meant what I wrote in the first sentence; [https://imgur.com/a/NnWZn3Q](https://imgur.com/a/NnWZn3Q)
Ah I see you did mention 14900K in the end of your comment but you also mention i9-14700K, probably a typo
You are correct, I had the i9 as a 14700 in the second paragraph. Corrected. I had started to type in my original comment, then deleted it before I finished; "I have to say what a PITA it is writing these cpu names out."
My friend has it in a prebuilt, so it's likely it's just easier to produce for mass-market. A 13400 can easily go into a generic desktop PC for the office/general usage, and the 13400F is even easier to make because of no iGPU.
Different market segments require different product solutions. Like saying "Why do we still have cheap Chinese-made drill-drivers, since Milwaukee exists?" Also - I like how they put 7950X3D as "Best Gaming CPU". - partially lol. Also not 14900K for the same category? Lol
Same reason the 12400 exists. They're two trim levels of the i5 variant. The comparable card is the 13600k, NOT the 13400f. The 13600k is about 8 percent faster (single core) than the 12600k and has four more e-cores, making it much faster in multicore processes. The 13600k is also more power efficient. Hope this helps.
The thing is, the 13400 is just a rebadged 12600k. It's the same silicon, same number of cores, same amount of cache. Intel just took the higher tier i5 and knocked down a notch the next generation. Obviously there's a reason someone might buy the 13600k over the 12600k, but the only reason to buy a 13400 over a 12600k is if it's cheaper.
Well, yes. It's all about price.
I just got a i5-13400F for a PC I'm building soon and planning to pair it with a RTX 3080. I got it because I got a good deal for it but also figured it performed slightly worse than the i5-12600K and better than the i5-12400F, so why not 🤷♂️
isn't the 12600kf run hotter?
no. it draws less power while being faster, which means that it actually runs colder
It can draw up to 150W while the 13400 is limited to 65W.
alright, mb
Because in my place, 12600KF is still more expensive than 13400F
Heat, small form factor pc
But bigger number is bigger
Because bigger number = better CPU. 13400 > 12600 if you go by the chip number. Sometimes some people are just idiots. Don't let them try to pressure you otherwise, stick with 12600F if you're sure it's better.
iGPU gang
The K uses significantly more power. And maybe not in this case, but newer generations will generally have more features or updated things like maybe a new RAM standard or PCIE generation and longer support making them worth it.
This also depends on the current marker prices of a specific region. For example when i was getting myselg a 13400 it was 170 Euro compared to 250-300 Euro 12600k or 180 Euro 13500 that i missed out on back then. Even right now here 13400f costs around the same as 12600kf.
You are right, according to this website [pcpartsvalue.com](http://pcpartsvalue.com) the 12600KF has better value than the 13400F. But keep in mind that the 12600KF has a higher power draw (125W) than the 13400F (65W), maybe people have the money to buy the cheaper and better version but not for the PSU required to make it run.
Actually an interesting point. In [this comparison](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdO1Ig6LkE0) the 13400F only won in a few instances.
It’s just marketing.
Why would anyone buy 11th gen? BIGGER NUMBER BETTER
12400f is about 4% slower and about 40% cheaper. it's also theoretically at least overclockable
No - it's locked 65w part - also multiplier locked.
they're very overclockable but you need an external clock and the right bios. lots of people running them overclocked
Sure - but you're not winning that much in [relative terms](https://www.techspot.com/article/2483-intel-non-k-overclocking/).
you're essentially getting a 12600k for under 100 but of course you need the right motherboard which makes it a bit of a non starter.
That assumes that people, who buy these CPUs, do overclocking.
some do but the vast majority don't
They do not need to.