Intel Core i5-13600K

By design, Intel’s Core i5 processors are never the fastest CPUs on the market, but they are consistently are one of the best choices for smart, value-minded PC gaming. That’s to be expected with each new release, as these chips aim to provide solid performance, but at a lower price than Intel’s higher-end Core i7 and Core i9 chips. The new 13th Gen " Raptor Lake" Core i5-13600K, priced at $329, holds true to form, even exceeding our expectations for a Core i5. Unless you are on a tight budget or have oodles of cash to spend, it’s hard to recommend buying anything else if you're willing to go with Intel's LGA 1700 platform for your next gaming-first PC. For that, we award the Intel Core i5-13600K our Editors' Choice laurel for mainstream gaming CPUs.

Round Two With a 'Raptor Lake' Design

Architecturally, Intel’s 13th Gen Raptor Lake Core processors are not new; Raptor Lake is a direct evolution of Intel’s 12th Gen Core architecture, better known as " Alder Lake." Alder Lake itself was revolutionary, introducing the use of two distinct CPU core types inside of a single processor.

Intel defines the cores used inside of these chips as high-octane Performance cores (P-cores) or lower-power Efficient cores (E-cores). The P-cores are the real backbone of the design, with all 12th Gen and 13th Gen processors having at least some P-cores. The E-cores have so far been more selectively allocated in certain chip models. Many Alder Lake processors didn’t have any E-cores, but those that did gained a major performance boost in some usage cases from the extra cores onboard.

Just like Alder Lake, Raptor Lake continues to use this design, with the most notable change being an increase in core counts, clock speeds, and cache. The Core i5-13600K ships with six P-cores that can operate at up to 5.1GHz, and it also has eight E-cores that top out at 3.9GHz. The P-cores also support Hyper-Threading technology, to further boost multi-threaded performance.

The last-gen Core i5-12600K also shipped with six Hyper-Threaded P-cores that were clocked just slightly lower at 4.9GHz. But the Core i5-12600K had just four E-cores, clocked at 3.6GHz. The increase in clock speed helps the Core i5-13600K some, but clearly most of the performance boost inherent in the Core i5-13600K comes from its doubling of the count of E-cores.

It’s also notable that the Core i5-13600K has 24MB of L3 cache, 4MB more than the Core i5-12600K. That’s in addition to 20MB of L2 cache, which is slightly more than double the 9.5MB of L2 cache found on the Core i5-12600K.

Other than that, there are only a few minor changes between the processors. The other changes inherent in the Core i5-13600K is a faster DDR5 memory controller that supports DDR5 up to 5,600MHz. Also, it has a negligibly higher-clocked integrated graphics processor (IGP) that runs just 50MHz faster. The IGP itself didn’t change, though; both come equipped with an Intel UHD Graphics 770 IGP. The Core i5-13600K does have a higher power limit of 181 watts (181W) compared to the Core i5-12600K, but with the increase in core count this is not surprising.

For all its positive attributes, there is at least one somewhat concerning factor we should point out: the processor’s price. With an MSRP of $329, the Core i5-13600K costs $40 more than its predecessor did at launch. (The Core i5-12600K launched at $289.) Not taking performance into consideration, it’s disheartening to see the entry price for any Core i5 processor, even a deluxe, unlocked "K" one, now sitting north of $300.

The big concern we have here: The climbing price of Core i5 processors will also likely mean budget-friendly options released further down the road will also cost more. This is a trend we have seen far too much of in recent years, and Intel certainly isn’t alone here, but that doesn’t counter our disappointment at this generational price increase.

Testing the Intel Core i5-13600K: Our Test Setup and Specs

We tested the Core i5-13600K on our recently refreshed LGA 1700 test bed. It uses a Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Master motherboard with two 16GB sticks of DDR5 RAM in a dual-channel configuration operating at 5,600MHz. All of the CPUs tested are paired with an equal quantity of RAM clocked at each CPU's highest officially supported RAM clock speed (5,200MHz for all Ryzen 7000 processors, 4,800MHz for all Alder Lake processors).

All processors are cooled by a Cooler Master MasterLiquid PL240 Flux 240mm water cooler, and each system is powered by a SilverStone DA850 PSU. To minimize the impact of heat on the test systems, we employ a Praxis Wetbench open-air chassis. All benchmarks are run under Windows 11, and an Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 Founders Edition graphics card is used for all tests except the integrated graphics tests.

Though the Core i5-12600K is the direct predecessor of the Core i5-13600K, this new processor lines up closer in spec to the Core i7-12700K, which is closer in core count, cache amount, and power limit. Comparing AMD’s AM4 processors to Intel’s new Raptor Lake processors is difficult, as the two companies now use very different designs but price-wise, the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X costs a fair deal more than the Core i5-13600K. Lets see if it’s worth that extra cost. (Spoiler: It’s not!)

CPU Performance Tests

Intel may have increased the size of the L2 caches on its Raptor Lake processors, but their overall speed has not improved much. Read and write performance of the L2 cache is up slightly versus the Core i5-12600K, but overall performance in this area lags far behind AMD. The larger size of the L2 cache should still help performance, though, as it reduces the chance that the processor will need to go to the L3 cache or system memory for data.

In contrast to the L2 cache performance, the L3 cache is surprisingly fast, and it actually manages to outperform the L2 cache in raw bandwidth. Memory bandwidth is also excellent. The DDR5 in this test system is clocked slightly higher than the DDR5 used with the competing AMD AM5 processors, but only by a mere 8%, which means the far larger gap in performance we see in this chart is due at least in part to the performance of the memory controller and not just the RAM itself.

Arguably, the Core i5-13600K makes the best argument so far for Intel’s new processor-design philosophy. Those smaller, lower-performance E-cores are cheaper to produce than the big cores by design, but they still pack some serious firepower. This is made clear by the Core i5-13600K’s CPU test results.

In most of the CPU tests, the Core i5-13600K handily outperforms the Core i7-12700K. The Core i7-12700K entered the market at $409 last year and has almost as many cores, with a total of 12 (eight P-cores, four E-cores). The Core i5-13600K costs $80 less with two fewer P-cores, twice as many E-cores, and 8MB more L2 cache.

Given this information, it seemed likely that these processors would trade places, depending on the test, but instead the Core i5-13600K performs better in every test. It doesn't win by a wide margin in some tests, but it does win. The Core i5-12600K, for its part, was left in the dust, and the Core i5-13600K even manages to perform slightly better than the 16-core Ryzen 9 7950X in a few tests. (That said, the Core i5 lost to the 16-core/32-thread Ryzen 9 7950X badly in most tests, as you'd expect.)

AMD’s Ryzen 7 7700X is a more evenly matched opponent for the Core i5-13600K, but here Intel has some notable advantages. The Core i5-13600K beats the Ryzen 7 7700X in seven out of eight tests, though again some of these are by slim margins. The one test where the Core i5-13600K doesn't post a better score is in Adobe Photoshop, a slim win for the Ryzen 7 7700X. If you factor in that the Ryzen 7 7700X costs $170 more than the Core i5-13600K, then it becomes difficult to argue in favor of the Ryzen 7 7700X.

Gaming Performance Tests

Gaming is traditionally a strong point for Intel’s Core i5 processors. They may not be the fastest processors money can buy, but they typically perform well enough so as to not seriously bottleneck the graphics card. In general, this is what we see with the Core i5-13600K paired with our Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 benchmark card.

In a few cases (Bioshock: Infinite, Marvel’s Guardians Of The Galaxy), the Core i9-13900K shows a slight performance advantage, but these advantages are trivial and selective. It’s hard to make a strong argument for a more powerful processor for your gaming PC with such negligible upside gained for much more money.

Indeed, as far as gaming is concerned, it’s hard to make a strong argument for any of the processors in the chart above except the Core i5-13600K and the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X. The Core i5 hangs with the best of them and is priced lower than most of its competition. Its direct predecessor is available for $40 less, and the Ryzen 7 5700X starts at $299, but both of those also come with a sizable drop in performance. The AMD Ryzen 7 5700X, for its part, is a bit slower in most games, but it also cheaper, making it a strong budget option if the AMD AM4 platform (and, maybe reusing some DDR4 memory) is the best option for you.

Integrated Graphics Performance Tests

The integrated graphics test results are becoming rather predictable for us at this point, as Intel is utilizing the same IGP on all of the 12th and 13th Gen Intel Core chips tested. The clock speed that the IGP operates at varies from chip to chip, and the new Raptor Lake IGPs are likely benefiting from the faster memory controller built into the CPU. But fundamentally, they are the same. As a result, these chips fall neatly in line in most tests.

Intel's Core i5-13600K's IGP does demonstrate a modest performance gain over its direct predecessor in most tests, but it is outpaced by the Core i9-13900K's IGP in all tests. The one exception where the Core i5-13600K performs slower than the Core i5-12600K is in Tomb Raider, which appears to stress the CPU more. This enables the Core i5-12600K to pull ahead, not because it has the fastest CPU in the bunch, but because its slower CPU doesn’t get quite as hot, allowing the IGP to run better, with more thermal headroom.

Power Consumption & Thermals

We monitor the power consumption of the entire system during a few tests to garner a rough idea of the processor’s power consumption. The number reported is the peak power consumption shown during that test as read at the wall by a Kill-A-Watt meter.

Overall, the Core i5 shows excellent power consumption readings during our tests. It peaks at 471W during our Adobe Premiere test, which is the lowest of any of the CPUs we tested for comparison. Intel's Core i5 pulls slightly more power in the Cinebench test than the competing Ryzen 7 7700X, but it also performs slightly better in that test, which makes this a rather mixed result.

The Core i5-13600K’s thermal performance is also excellent relative to its overall speed. All of these CPUs were tested using the same CPU cooler and with a fresh application of thermal paste, so none of them has an unfair advantage. Though the Core i5-13600K does run considerably hotter than its predecessor, it also runs significantly cooler than the Core i7-12700K, which it marginally outperforms. This leaves the door open to some amount of overclocking, as the Core i5-13600K’s thermal ceiling is 100 degrees C—just like the Core i9-13900K.

Verdict: A New Best Processor for Most Gamers

Intel's relative price increase with the Core i5-13600K is unwelcome. But we’ve run our tests and cannot deny that the Core i5-13600K still offers exceptional performance for what you pay. Sure, it isn't as fast as the Core i9-13900K or the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X in CPU tests (those flagships have a big core-count advantage), but in games with an Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080—or anything weaker. really—it is more than a match for these two higher-end CPUs.

When it comes to the more immediate competition, like the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X, the Core i5-13600K places AMD in a rather difficult situation. The AMD Ryzen 7 7700X is simply slower than the Core i5-13600K, and it costs $70 more too! Even with a price drop to match the Core i5-13600K, the Core i5 remains the better option. Unless AMD wants to cut the Ryzen 7 7700X to cost less than the Core i5-13600K, it is going to be a very tough sell. The Ryzen 5 7600X, which we haven’t finished testing yet, may fare better in a relative sense, as it is priced lower. However, for now, our main recommendation to most gamers is going to be to buy an Intel Core i5-13600K.