Boost Frequencies of the All-important Core i5-13400 and i5-13500 Revealed

[LuxZg]

Well, 13400 sounds... as if it's in weird position. If all these rumors are true, then 13400 is based on Alder Lake, plus 4.1 vs 4.4 GHz, so it's 10% SLOWER than 12400 in single core and unoptimized MT workloads. So there's every possibility for it to score lower than 12400 in everything but most optimized MT benches (reality included). Somehow looks wrong... But then again... Intel

 

[dj-electric]

Well, 13400 sounds... as if it's in weird position. If all these rumors are true, then 13400 is based on Alder Lake, plus 4.1 vs 4.4 GHz, so it's 10% SLOWER than 12400 in single core and unoptimized MT workloads. So there's every possibility for it to score lower than 12400 in everything but most optimized MT benches (reality included). Somehow looks wrong... But then again... Intel

Where was it stated that 13400 was based on Alder Lake and not Raptor Lake?

 

[ModEl4]

It should be just an engineering sample, it doesn't make sense, even if they keep 13400 at below $200 let's say $199 and they increase the price of 13500 from $202 that 12500 was (+$10 from 12400) to $229, still it wouldn't make sense.
I don't remember a time the last decade that i5 had a frequency reduction (same tier models at launch) even when the IPC increase was good like Haswell or Alder Lake, in worst case scenario the frequency remained the same (and we had core/thread/price increases the last decade also)
Why 13500 has only 100MHz reduction while 13400 has 300MHz reduction despite 13500 gaining 8 E cores and 13400 only 4 E cores? (E cores doesn't mean anything regarding P core single core turbo specifically but they add general performance and value to a model so I don't see the need if 13500 lost only 100MHz, 13400 to lose 300MHz.
The IPC increase in applications that benefit from cache (like games) should be good but in other apps it doesn't say anything and the supposedly cache latency improvements also don't benefit significantly some apps so at 4.1GHz there will be apps that it will be slower than 12400 so the frequency just doesn't add up.We had the last 1-2 weeks the info that 13600K went from previous 5.2GHz rumor to 5.1GHz and now this?
I have to redo my 13600K and below calculations from the start!

 

[tussinman]

Wish these where coming out first wave instead of Q1 of next year

 

[Chrispy_]

E-cores are awesome.

Honestly, for 99% of people in 99% of tasks, you need like maybe 2-3 fast threads to clock as high as the power/cooling allow and every other thread can be run on a potato. Unless you're a heavy multi-tasker, big.LITTLE is the future.

With AM5 and LGA1700 both being so power-hungry, it's clear that power is the limit for CPUs right now and the ability to do non-essential things on low-power cores is obviously the best way to optimise power use. It has taken Microsoft, game developers, and Intel to work out the P+E strategy but I'm looking forward to seeing more of it in the future across all price points.

The 2P+8E i3 I borrowed earlier this year was a genuinely impressive piece of kit. No, it wasn't as good as a 6800U but that's largely down to Intel's 10 7nm process still being a piece of shit compared to TSMC6. What stood out about it was that it did NOT feel like a dual-core machine. It handled multithreaded stuff like a champ and at no point did I ever feel it was slow - and that's something that I can definitely say for older 4C/8T machines these days.

So yeah, Intel are still a horrible nasty, oppressive, scumbag of a company and you should root for the underdog just for the sake of healthy competition in the market, but E-cores everywhere will turn up the heat on AMD. E-cores were a potential headache in the early days of Alder Lake but I think we're mostly past that now and it can only get better from here.

 

[LuxZg]

Where was it stated that 13400 was based on Alder Lake and not Raptor Lake?

Well, it's not official, but word is that those B-0 chips (see table in post above here: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...400-and-i5-13500-revealed.298207/post-4821559 ) are Rocket Lake, while C-0 are only Alder Lake respin. Sure they gained efficiency cores going from eg 12400 to 13400, but if max boost is lower, in less threaded workloads they will lose performance, seeing as they don't get any IPC gains from Rocket Lake.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Well, it's not official, but word is that those B-0 chips (see table in post above here: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...400-and-i5-13500-revealed.298207/post-4821559 ) are Rocket Lake, while C-0 are only Alder Lake respin. Sure they gained efficiency cores going from eg 12400 to 13400, but if max boost is lower, in less threaded workloads they will lose performance, seeing as they don't get any IPC gains from Rocket Lake.

That has been mostly debunked. 13400 showed up on Geekbench with a Raptor Lake core cache configuration.