Core i5-6600K vs Core i7-13700

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i7-13700
2023
16 cores / 24 threads, 65 Watt
24.09
+489%

Core i7-13700 outperforms Core i5-6600K by a whopping 489% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i7-13700 and Core i5-6600K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking1891335
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation65.101.63
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Seriesno dataIntel Core i5 (Desktop)
Architecture codenameRaptor Lake-SSkylake (2015−2016)
Release date4 January 2023 (1 year ago)2 July 2015 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$384$242
Current price$347 (0.9x MSRP)$132 (0.5x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i7-13700 has 3894% better value for money than i5-6600K.

Detailed specifications

Core i7-13700 and Core i5-6600K basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores16 (Hexadeca-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads244
Base clock speed2.1 GHz3.5 GHz
Boost clock speed5.2 GHz3.9 GHz
L1 cache80K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache2 MB (per core)256K (per core)
L3 cache30 MB (shared)6 MB (shared)
Chip lithographyIntel 7 nm14 nm
Die size257 mm2122 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °C64 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °C72 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+-
Unlocked multiplierYesYes

Compatibility

Information on Core i7-13700 and Core i5-6600K compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11
SocketFCLGA1700FCLGA1151
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt91 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-13700 and Core i5-6600K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
TSX++
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
SIPP+-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0+no data
StatusLaunchedDiscontinued

Security technologies

Core i7-13700 and Core i5-6600K technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+-
EDB++
Secure Key++
MPXno data+
Identity Protectionno data+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® ME
OS Guard++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-13700 and Core i5-6600K are enumerated here.

AMD-Vno data+
VT-d++
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-13700 and Core i5-6600K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5-5600, DDR4-3200DDR3, DDR4
Maximum memory size192 GB64 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth89.6 GB/s34.1 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel UHD Graphics 770Intel HD Graphics 530
Max video memoryno data64 GB
Quick Sync Video++
Clear Videono data+
Clear Video HD++
Graphics max frequency1.6 GHz1.15 GHz
Execution Units32no data
InTru 3Dno data+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core i7-13700 and Core i5-6600K integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported43
eDPno data+
DisplayPortno data+
HDMIno data+
DVIno data+

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Core i7-13700 and Core i5-6600K integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

4K resolution supportno data+
Max resolution over HDMI 1.44096 x 2160 @ 60Hz4096x2304@24Hz
Max resolution over eDP5120 x 3200 @ 120Hz4096x2304@60Hz
Max resolution over DisplayPort7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz4096x2304@60Hz
Max resolution over VGAno dataN/A

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Core i7-13700 and Core i5-6600K integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectX1212
OpenGL4.54.5

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-13700 and Core i5-6600K.

PCIe version5.0 and 4.03.0
PCI Express lanes2016

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

i7-13700 24.09
+489%
i5-6600K 4.09

Core i7-13700 outperforms Core i5-6600K by 489% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

i7-13700 37254
+490%
i5-6600K 6319

Core i7-13700 outperforms Core i5-6600K by 490% in Passmark.

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

i7-13700 2630
+84.2%
i5-6600K 1428

Core i7-13700 outperforms Core i5-6600K by 84% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

i7-13700 14807
+267%
i5-6600K 4035

Core i7-13700 outperforms Core i5-6600K by 267% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

i7-13700 10840
+75.2%
i5-6600K 6188

Core i7-13700 outperforms Core i5-6600K by 75% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

i7-13700 82724
+288%
i5-6600K 21324

Core i7-13700 outperforms Core i5-6600K by 288% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

i7-13700 17194
+132%
i5-6600K 7413

Core i7-13700 outperforms Core i5-6600K by 132% in 3DMark06 CPU.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

i7-13700 50
+627%
i5-6600K 7

Core i7-13700 outperforms Core i5-6600K by 627% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

i7-13700 3692
+514%
i5-6600K 602

Core i7-13700 outperforms Core i5-6600K by 514% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

i7-13700 285
+71.7%
i5-6600K 166

Core i7-13700 outperforms Core i5-6600K by 72% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

i7-13700 3.5
+86.2%
i5-6600K 1.88

Core i7-13700 outperforms Core i5-6600K by 86% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

i7-13700 22
+588%
i5-6600K 3.2

Core i7-13700 outperforms Core i5-6600K by 588% in TrueCrypt AES.

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

i7-13700 12289
+237%
i5-6600K 3643

Core i7-13700 outperforms Core i5-6600K by 237% in WinRAR 4.0.

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

i7-13700 224
+459%
i5-6600K 40

Core i7-13700 outperforms Core i5-6600K by 459% in x264 encoding pass 2.

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

i7-13700 393
+100%
i5-6600K 196

Core i7-13700 outperforms Core i5-6600K by 100% in x264 encoding pass 1.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 24.09 4.09
Integrated graphics card 6.14 2.59
Recency 4 January 2023 2 July 2015
Physical cores 16 4
Threads 24 4
Cost $384 $242
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 91 Watt

The Core i7-13700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-6600K in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-13700 and Core i5-6600K, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core i7-13700
Core i7-13700
Intel Core i5-6600K
Core i5-6600K

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 309 votes

Rate Core i7-13700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 1051 vote

Rate Core i5-6600K on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i7-13700 or Core i5-6600K, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.