AMD Ryzen 7 250 vs Intel Core i5-13600K Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 records an average benchmark score of 38221, while the Intel Core i5-13600K records 37685. The Ryzen 7 250 holds a small edge in this aggregate metric.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-13600K scores 24221 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 39.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 250's 14676. This is the largest single benchmark gap between the two in the recorded data.

Q: Does the AMD processor win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head benchmark data shows the Intel Core i5-13600K winning all 15 recorded test comparisons. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 records zero wins in these direct comparisons.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two chips?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 uses a 4 nm process node fabricated by TSMC, while the Intel Core i5-13600K uses a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core i5-13600K supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen 7 250 does not.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 has a TDP of 28 watts, while the Intel Core i5-13600K has a TDP of 125 watts.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 7 250 and Intel Core i5-13600K represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Ryzen 7 250 is built on AMD's Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename, fabricated on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Core i5-13600K uses Intel's Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-S codename, fabricated on a 10 nm process by Intel.

The transistor count and die size tell a story of process efficiency. The AMD chip integrates 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel chip does not have a recorded transistor count but uses a substantially larger die at 257 mm². This size difference, combined with the process node advantage, allows the Ryzen 7 250 to achieve significantly lower power consumption.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The Ryzen 7 250 uses 8 cores and 16 threads, all based on the Zen 4 architecture. The Core i5-13600K uses 14 cores and 20 threads, which in the Raptor Lake design includes a mix of performance and efficiency cores. The Intel chip's higher core count contributes to its multi-threaded performance advantages.

Cache hierarchies differ in structure. The Ryzen 7 250 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i5-13600K provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip has more L3 cache and larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations.

Memory support also differs. The Ryzen 7 250 supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Core i5-13600K supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, but no memory bandwidth figure is recorded for it. The Intel chip supports ECC memory, while the AMD chip does not.

PCIe capabilities vary by generation and lane count. The Ryzen 7 250 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The Core i5-13600K provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Intel chip offers a newer PCIe generation but fewer lanes.

Integrated graphics differ in branding. The Ryzen 7 250 includes Radeon 780M graphics, while the Core i5-13600K includes UHD Graphics 770. The market segments also differ: the Ryzen 7 250 is a mobile processor on AMD Socket FP8, while the Core i5-13600K is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1700.

Clock speeds show a shared maximum. Both processors reach a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The base clocks differ, with the Ryzen 7 250 at 3.30 GHz and the Core i5-13600K at 3.50 GHz. The Intel chip has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD chip does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i5-13600K wins every one of the 15 recorded comparisons. The magnitude of the wins varies considerably across workloads.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core i5-13600K scores 3642 against the Ryzen 7 250's 2302, a 36.8% advantage. The single-core version of this test is much closer: 287.5 versus 269, a 6.4% edge for Intel. Cinebench R23 shows a similar pattern, with the Intel chip winning multi-core by 39.4% (24221 versus 14676) and single-core by 14.3% (2000.5 versus 1715).

PassMark tests reveal where the Intel chip's core count and cache structure provide the largest gains. The biggest margin is in find prime numbers, where Intel scores 155 against AMD's 73, a 52.9% advantage. Physics follows closely: 2258 versus 1147, a 49.2% gap. Floating point math shows a 41.1% gap (90538 versus 53285). Data compression is 36.9% higher on Intel (476394 versus 300708), and data encryption is 34.8% higher (27075 versus 17661).

Other PassMark tests show more moderate margins. Integer math favors Intel by 25.2% (122481 versus 91565). Extended instructions favor Intel by 25% (28805 versus 21613). Random string sorting favors Intel by 29.8% (51073 versus 35861). The multithread score shows a 33.4% gap (37680 versus 25089). Single-thread results are closer: 4124 versus 3678, a 10.8% gap.

The smallest measured differences appear in single-core tests. The Cinebench R15 single-core margin is just 6.4%, and the PassMark single-thread margin is 10.8%. These results indicate that while the Intel chip dominates multi-threaded workloads, the single-thread performance gap is narrower, with the Ryzen 7 250's Zen 4 architecture partially closing the distance.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 250 | Intel Core i5-13600K |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 8 | 14 |

| Threads | 16 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 3.30 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 125 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Raptor Lake |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | 257 mm² |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | Not recorded |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB per core | 80 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB per core | 2 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 16 MB shared | 24 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | Not recorded |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 lanes | Gen 5, 16 lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 780M | UHD Graphics 770 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-13600K wins every direct benchmark comparison in the recorded data. Its advantages are most pronounced in multi-threaded and compute-intensive workloads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 24221 versus 14676 demonstrates a 39.4% lead, which positions the Intel chip as the stronger option for rendering, video encoding, and other tasks that scale with core count and cache size. The PassMark physics score of 2258 versus 1147 (a 49.2% gap) and the prime numbers result of 155 versus 73 (a 52.9% gap) reinforce this pattern for simulation and mathematical workloads.

The Intel chip's cache structure contributes to its wins in data-heavy tasks. With 24 MB of L3 cache versus 16 MB, plus larger per-core L2 allocations, the Core i5-13600K records a 36.9% advantage in data compression and a 34.8% advantage in data encryption. Random string sorting, which benefits from cache locality, shows a 29.8% gap in Intel's favor.

The AMD Ryzen 7 250 does not win any recorded benchmark, but it does show relatively smaller deficits in single-threaded tests. The Cinebench R15 single-core gap of 6.4% and the PassMark single-thread gap of 10.8% indicate that Zen 4's single-core efficiency partially offsets the Intel chip's architectural advantages. For workloads that are lightly threaded, the Ryzen 7 250 is not far behind.

The AMD chip's primary advantages lie outside raw benchmark scores. Its 28 watt TDP versus 125 watts indicates substantially lower power consumption, which is critical for mobile platforms. The 4 nm process node and 178 mm² die size contribute to this efficiency. The Ryzen 7 250 also provides more CPU PCIe lanes (20 versus 16), though at the older Gen 4 standard.

The use-case split is clear. The Intel Core i5-13600K is the stronger choice for desktop systems where multi-threaded throughput is the priority and power consumption is less constrained. Its 14 cores and 20 threads, combined with larger caches, deliver consistent wins across all measured workloads. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 is suited to mobile platforms where the 28 watt TDP, integrated Radeon 780M graphics, and compact die make it a viable option for thin-and-light systems. The data shows that in raw performance terms, the Intel chip is the clear winner, but the AMD chip offers a different trade-off centered on efficiency and mobility.