KaitouX

I recommend you to use something like this as base instead of the one you posted. Just change the case, storage, GPU and/or add more ram if needed. PCPartPicker Part List CPU: Intel Core i7-13700F 2.1 GHz 16-Core Processor ($349.99 @ Amazon) CPU Cooler: Thermalright Peerless Assassin 120 SE 66.17 CFM CPU Cooler ($34.90 @ Amazon) Motherboard: ASRock Z790 PG LIGHTNING ATX LGA1700 Motherboard ($179.99 @ Newegg) Memory: Patriot Viper Venom 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR5-6400 CL32 Memory ($91.99 @ B&H) Storage: Crucial P5 Plus 2 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive ($97.99 @ Amazon) Storage: Crucial P3 4 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 3.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive ($189.99 @ Adorama) Video Card: PNY VERTO GeForce RTX 4070 12 GB Video Card ($589.99 @ Amazon) Case: Corsair 4000D Airflow ATX Mid Tower Case ($89.99 @ Amazon) Power Supply: Corsair RM850e (2023) 850 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply ($129.99 @ Newegg) Total: $1754.82 Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available Generated by PCPartPicker 2023-09-07 14:08 EDT-0400

To have the same performance it's not going to be easier to cool, as you need to remove the power limits or set them to the same as the 13700K. And you can also just lower the power limits on the 13700K. The 13700(F) can be a good option if it's for a good discount, but for example I would say that in the US currently the 13700K is the best option, as it's only $15 more than the 13700F and you get an unlocked CPU with iGPU that will likely sell for slightly more when that time comes. On the cooler topic, besides the already mentioned, other popular and good options are the Deepcool AK620 and the Scythe Fuma 3, they are all quite close to each other in performance.

5800X3D, $100 for 32GB of DDR4 and a $300+ AM4 motherboard??? what? why? You can get the faster 13600K with 32GB of DDR5 6400 CL32 and Z790 board for $150 less, even a 7800X3D or 13700K would be at least $50 less.

You should check the 12600K, it's usually the better option compared to the 13400. The 12600K is faster and usually cheaper.

Relevant doesn't mean faster than other options. As example the 5800X3D still is relevant, but it's slower than a 7600x in gaming, which costs $230. It isn't that hard to guess that there's a decent chance that the Zen 5 Ryzen 5 will be as fast as the 7800X3D, and that Intel will have a 15600K or 15400F as fast as that Ryzen 5 for a similar price. The 7800X3D is the best gaming CPU on the market, but the same way it wouldn't have made sense to sacrifice GPU budget to go with a 5800X3D, it doesn't make sense to sacrifice now for the 7800X3D. There's even a good chance you could get a 7600x now, sell it after 2 or 3 years and get a 7800X3D or 8600x when they are actually needed (if needed) for the same money as getting a 7800X3D now. And during those 2 years you would've enjoyed a better GPU to top it off. For me the 7800X3D only makes sense for gaming only builds that include at very least a 7900XTX or 4080 at a lower resolution or in some edge cases where cache is a lot more important than usual.

You can get a 12600K for $156 on sale on Newegg, so i would definitively go with it over the 12400F.

It makes no sense going for a 7800X3D now to buy a extremely expensive GPU after 2 years. There's a good chance a $200 CPU in two years will be faster than the 7800X3D, so they would have overpaid for nothing. I would say the 12700KF for $220 or the 13600KF for $290 are better options.

The 12700KF is currently going for $220 on Newegg, so I would go for that instead.

Many motherboards default to removing power limits, which causes those ridiculously high temps and power draw you see, and it doesn't even change performance in any significant way, for the most part it's just a waste of energy. You don't even need to undervolt, just power limit it and it should still perform pretty much as you would expect of a 13700K at stock.

My 6700XT is also complete trash for undervolting, anything over -10mV is already unstable in some ways. To reduce power consumption I personally found useful to limit the clock, even something like 2.35Ghz already brings the power consumption down by almost 40W, while losing only 5% or so performance.

At idle Apple silicon is king, but at load it might not be. In some loads both 13900K and 7950X can be more efficient when optimized for efficiency. It also depends if GPUs are usable or not, in some cases a Nvidia GPU could be multiple times faster than the M2 while using similar amount of power at load, but again at idle it would be significantly less efficient than the M2, as you would be looking at around 50~80W usage on idle for a PC with a dGPU compared to about 20W for a Mac Studio. An example that may or may not be helpful to you, on Cinebench R23 at stock the 3990X(280W) seemingly achieves ~58000, the 13900K while limited to 88W achieves ~28000 and the 7950X achieves ~30000 while limited to the same 88W. Both are apparently roughly on a similar efficiency level as the M2 Ultra, at least when looking at CPU only, the entire system might give Apple an advantage, but you could build a 7950X system for much cheaper than a Mac Studio, that price difference could compensate for the slightly higher power consumption.

The motherboard VRM could overheat during heavy all-core loads at stock, but for gaming or if you power limit the CPU to 180W or below it's probably fine.

Sony phones have both dual sim(or microSD) and headphone jack. Xiaomi, Oppo and Vivo also have some models with both.

By the score I will guess you set the PL2 to expire after a minute or so, but Intel spec I believe is infinite PL2 for K CPUs. Anyway I would probably lower the PL2 to about 160~180W, as that should keep the temperatures in check while being almost as fast as stock even in all-core workloads. You can also set the PL1 to 180W and PL2 to 253W, and make it drop to PL1 after a minute, that should keep short all-core loads as fast as stock, while keeping it a bit more controlled in longer ones.

Set the power limit in the bios to something like 125W.

Does the temperature drop afterwards? How do the temps look on other tests such as Cinebench? And how much power the CPU is using? While the temperature isn't high enough to be an issue, and you can continue using the PC without issues, at stock the 13600K shouldn't stay at 90c when paired with that cooler and case even during stress tests unless ambient temperatures are really high. You could try remounting the cooler to make sure there aren't any issues with the thermal paste application and pressure.

The 13400 isn't 10% faster in ST compared to the 12400, it's a bit under 5%, coming mostly from the small clock bump. I did some extra checking and there are 13400 based on both Alder Lake and Raptor Lake dies, but both are limited to the exact same specs and perform like Alder Lake, in this case a underclocked 12600K.

I wouldn't recommend the 13400F. On current generation Intel my recommendations would go like this: 12100/13100 12400 12600K 13500 13600K 13700K and non-K variants 13900K and non-K variants And the respective F SKUs, if you don't need the iGPU or if the price difference is too big. If you can benefit from the E-cores, the 12600K can be significantly faster than the 12400 usually between 30~50% on tasks that use all cores, and it's also 10~15% faster in general due to the higher clocks, if you can afford it and it costs around 200EUR, it's a good option. The 13400 is the 12600K locked with lower clocks and usually a bit more expensive, so most of the time it's not worth it. I think only 13600K and above are Raptor Lake, the 13400F is a rebranded 12600K and the 13500 uses a defective 12900K die, that's why it has less cache than the 13600K even though it has the same core count.

12700K doesn't make sense unless you can get it for significantly cheaper than the 13600K, the 13600K is faster in almost every way. Depends on what you expect the performance jump. For gaming there's probably a small, but noticeable performance increase in some games, some will stay the same, while some may have big improvements, in particular to the lows, if you upgrade the GPU the difference would be bigger. For other tasks the 12600K and 13600K are going to be significantly faster, they're 70%+ faster per core, while including 2 extra cores, HT and E-cores, making for a 3x(12600K) or 4x(13600K) improvement compared to an OC'd 7600K in heavy MT loads.

The memory is fine. Probably not worth, DDR5 while beneficial in some games usually isn't that big of a difference(at least not worth $100) and the 7800X3D while technically faster than the 13600K, wouldn't be significant due to being GPU limited at most games. Considering you already own decent DDR4, I would just keep it. The power consumption difference between the 13700K and 13600K is about 15W while gaming, the power draw of the 13700K is only high if you're overclocking or doing all-core loads at stock, you can also power limit it to whatever you feel comfortable with, but considering you have a 3060Ti I would probably go for the 13600K anyway, the 13700K isn't noticeably faster for gaming even with a 4090, being only slightly more than 5% faster at lower resolutions. Just make sure your block is compatible with LGA1700, and the board you get.

For the most part the workloads you've listed won't fully load the 13700, so heat shouldn't be a major concern. The 7900 is usually the better option for small builds, but be aware you can just power limit the 13700K, the 13700K at ~125W is roughly equal to the 7900 at stock in heavy all-core loads. At lighter loads it should perform the same as stock unless you go much lower than the 125~142W range, as long as the CPU doesn't hit the power limit for long it will perform as stock. But if the 7900 costs about the same as the 13700, it's probably the better choice for a SFF build.

That 364W includes the 2080Ti used in the test. The 175W number in the Multi-Threaded test is the most it will pull at stock, but realistically most people don't fully load both the CPU and GPU at the same time.

PCPartPicker Part List CPU: Intel Core i5-13600KF 3.5 GHz 14-Core Processor (£273.04 @ Box Limited) CPU Cooler: Thermalright Peerless Assassin 120 White 66.17 CFM CPU Cooler (£46.59 @ Amazon UK) Motherboard: ASRock B760M PG SONIC WiFi Micro ATX LGA1700 Motherboard (£154.00 @ MoreCoCo) Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws S5 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR5-6000 CL32 Memory (£100.36 @ Amazon UK) Storage: Samsung 980 Pro 2 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive (£142.69 @ Newegg UK) Video Card: Sapphire PULSE Radeon RX 6700 XT 12 GB Video Card (£311.39 @ NeoComputers) Case: Fractal Design North ATX Mid Tower Case (£120.62 @ NeoComputers) Power Supply: Corsair RM750e (2023) 750 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply (£97.98 @ Ebuyer) Operating System: Microsoft Windows 11 Home OEM - DVD 64-bit (£99.95 @ Amazon UK) Case Fan: ARCTIC P12 PST 56.3 CFM 120 mm Fans 5-Pack (£27.39 @ Amazon UK) Total: £1374.01 Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available Generated by PCPartPicker 2023-07-24 15:58 BST+0100

Both 13700 and 7900 are good options, the 7900 strength is mainly the lower power consumption(or higher performance when limited to the same power) during long heavy all-core workloads. From the workloads you mentioned the 13700K seems to be faster than the 7900X on both After Effects and FL Studio, but I'm not sure on the others, and I'm not that familiar with those loads, but if they don't load all the cores at once the 13700K shouldn't lose much if any performance even if you power limit it to something more reasonable than stock, tasks that load all the cores at once like Blender CPU render, x265/x264 encoding or similar lose about 10~12% performance when limited to 142W compared to the 253W stock, the 7900X on the other hand loses only about 3~5% on those tasks when limited to 142W. The recommended AK620 should be fine for either 7900X or 13700K alternatives that might be quieter during lighter loads are the Scythe Fuma 2 and Noctua D15, as they seem to be able to spin slower, unfortunately now days no one tests idle/low load noise on coolers, so it's just speculation. My experience is that Scythe fans are silent when set to the lowest speed, but that is from my old Kotetsu which I bought in 2015. The fan on the AK400 i have is really quiet, but still possible to hear if I try. The main difference between the 13700 and 13700K is that the "K" model is unlocked, meaning you can change clocks and voltages, it also clocks slightly higher. Both can be power limited by setting the PL1 and PL2 in the BIOS, which is what I would recommend for lowering the power consumption of PCs that need to be stable, as undervolting can make the system unstable. Unlocked Intel CPUs usually retain a bit more value when sold used, if that matters. On many motherboards the power consumption will be the same, as the PL2 is often set to maximum by default on most Z690/Z790 and more expensive B660/B760. Also the performance loss isn't negligible in tasks that actually reach the power limit, with heavier all-core tasks being ~35% slower at 65W compared to stock, I would recommend something between 125W and 142W, as it's only about 10~15% slower than stock, while still being over 30% faster than the 65W limit.