Intel Core i5-13400F

[W1zzard]

The Intel Core i5-13400F is only $200, but comes with six Performance Cores and four E-Cores, bringing the total thread count to 16. Performance is good, as expected, but what's even more impressive is the energy efficiency as confirmed by the detailed testing in our review.

Show full review

 

[Selaya]

so basically 12600k w/o much memory oc headroom/potential.
meh.

rather buy the OG than the shitty, locked-down repost, tbh

 

[Denver]

"Windows 11 Professional 64-bit 22H2
VBS enabled (Windows 11 default)"

Keeping this active does not degrade the performance of Ryzen CPUs in games?

 

[W1zzard]

Keeping this active does not degrade the performance of Ryzen CPUs in games?

No idea, but it's the default for new installations, so turning it off isn't the way the world works

Good article suggestion, worth exploring if/how much of a perf difference

 

[Jeelo]

Cool CPU

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Looks like a great chip, and for most mid range and even high end builds the GPU will always be the bottleneck.

We're getting to that point again where even low end CPUs can max out what GPUs can do, and I'm all for it.

 

[Imouto]

"The Intel Core i5-13400F is only $200, but comes with six Performance Cores and four E-Cores, bringing the total thread count to 16. Performance is good, as expected, but what's even more impressive is the energy efficiency as confirmed by the detailed testing in our review."

Which is missing the R9 7950X3D in most of the charts.

 

[Lost_Troll]

How much performance are you giving up with DDR4 vs DDR5, and what is the fastest RAM speed/frequency the locked CPU's can do?

 

[napata]

"Windows 11 Professional 64-bit 22H2
VBS enabled (Windows 11 default)"

Keeping this active does not degrade the performance of Ryzen CPUs in games?

It degrades performance for all CPUs.

Benchmarked: Do Windows 11’s Security Features Really Hobble Gaming Performance?

How much do they hurt, and how to opt out.

www.tomshardware.com

Atleast in the past it seemed to hit Intel slightly more but it's more or less the same.

 

[Tek-Check]

11900K in a shame here, but this fast? Wow!

 

[sLowEnd]

A surprising alternative is the Intel Core i5-12600K, which is from the previous generation and thus heavily discounted, to $210 currently. In terms of core config the 12600K and the 13400F are identical, but the 12600K runs higher clocks across the board and it supports overclocking thanks to the K suffix—at just a $10 difference, a no-brainer.

I'm not sure if it's actually that close. The 13400F comes with a stock cooler, whereas the 12600K does not. Getting a decent cooler for the 12600K will widen the price gap.

 

[tussinman]

so basically 12600k w/o much memory oc headroom/potential.
meh.

rather buy the OG than the shitty, locked-down repost, tbh

Agreed. 12600kf is only 4 more dollars as of right now and is faster and has better ram support.

13400f would of been better in the 180 dollar range

 

[GerKNG]

i have a 13400f (3466 G1 1T) and in almost all games i can not tell a difference between it and my 5.6 Ghz 13700K with DDR5 6000 CL30... except when i run benchmarks.

really solid CPU especially with a cheap b760 board and dual rank ram.

 

[Sithaer]

Looks like a great chip, and for most mid range and even high end builds the GPU will always be the bottleneck.

We're getting to that point again where even low end CPUs can max out what GPUs can do, and I'm all for it.

Yea to be honest I still can't actually justify upgrading from my 12100F for my use case in general.
At my native 2560x1080 res I'm pretty much GPU bound with my 3060 Ti in any new AAA game or even some from years ago if I crank up the settings and the really old games doesn't matter at this point cause they can be brute forced for the most part even if badly optimized/single theaded.

This 13400F is kinda overpriced where I live thanks to our taxes and whatnot, atm brand new its ~244$ after taxes and from a strictly gaming perspective thats not a good deal vs a 12400F for ~188$.
I was considering an upgrade earlier this year but the more I look into it the less reason I find for it so I guess I will sit on my potato i 3 until I actually NEED an upgrade and not just want it.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Yea to be honest I still can't actually justify upgrading from my 12100F for my use case in general.
At my native 2560x1080 res I'm pretty much GPU bound with my 3060 Ti in any new AAA game or even some from years ago if I crank up the settings and the really old games doesn't matter at this point cause they can be brute forced for the most part even if badly optimized/single theaded.

This 13400F is kinda overpriced where I live thanks to our taxes and whatnot, atm brand new its ~244$ after taxes and from a strictly gaming perspective thats not a good deal vs a 12400F for ~188$.
I was considering an upgrade earlier this year but the more I look into it the less reason I find for it so I guess I will sit on my potato i 3 until I actually NEED an upgrade and not just want it.

4-5 years from now when it might actually matter I'll bet youll be able to find this or a i7 13700f for cheap.

 

[wheresmycar]

Seeing the 1080p results -its crazy seeing the 13900K and 7950X3D easily pushing 30%+ gains over their game-only same generation locked/more-efficienct i5/r5 siblings. Wasn't the performance discrepancy smaller on previous generation chips? The 13400F just looks like a bad investment on a platform which should be deliverying plenty more... i had the same feelings about the 7600/X even though it performs a little better.

In an ideal world, it would have been nice seeing more efficient 6-core CPUs (locked and loaded) achieving higher frequencies or in the least somewhat closely trailing the top dogs. But i guess the commercial element suggests otherwise.... for most gaming-only buyers now its always core-spill expensive flagships pushed to the limit leaving the smaller siblings eclipsed and looking retarded

 

[Why_Me]

Agreed. 12600kf is only 4 more dollars as of right now and is faster and has better ram support.

13400f would of been better in the 180 dollar range

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...600kf-processor-20m-cache-up-to-4-90-ghz.html
Up to DDR5 4800 MT/s
Up to DDR4 3200 MT/s

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...3400f-processor-20m-cache-up-to-4-60-ghz.html
Up to DDR5 4800 MT/s
Up to DDR4 3200 MT/s

 

[Macro Device]

This i5 is a shame. Be it of the same arch as the higher-ranked 13th gen CPUs (y'know, it's de facto the locked out 12600KF at a lower frequency) and with no E-cores (it's utterly hard to find anyone who needs E-cores considering this budget area) but with higher clocks. Say, a classic 6/12 CPU with real Raptor Lake cores clocked at 4500 MHz in the all-core turbo mode, that would be an "I'm buying it immediately" gaming product.

And as of reality, it's a useless chunk of silicon and metal. Want more, get a 12600K and OC it. Want cheaper, get a 12600KF and don't OC it. Same level absurd as an i5-9400F and 11900 series (where are my cores #8 and #9!?).

 

[TristanX]

this test is screwed, results for 7600 (X) are all wrong

 

[Minus Infinity]

Wow it beats the 5800X by an average of 2% stock or 4% with power limits removed and uses a bit more than half the power. Better in gaming and productivity all round with a handful of exceptions. If Intel release Meteor Lake on desktop the 14400 through 14600 will be beasts.

Would have loved to seen the 13500, 13600 and 13700 in these charts, especially for the power efficiency. Sad to see how poorly the 7600X does on efficiency.

 

[shk021051]

is it true 13600 below all are based on an old architect(alder lake)?

 

[Minus Infinity]

is it true 13600 below all are based on an old architect(alder lake)?

Actually all below 13600K

 

[Space Lynx]

I'm surprised, I was expecting better or almost equal 13600k performance. Interesting.

I think at this point, I am going to wait for Meteor Lake / Ryzen 8600x to come out.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Huh, I expected this to crush the competition in efficiency when restricted to 65W and it doesn't. But I also expected it to lose badly when not restricted to 65W and that also didn't happen. Plusses and minuses ends up being pretty good.

But wow how much faster this is than my aging i5-8400, which is considerably slower than the 10400 bottoming out those performance charts.

 

[R0H1T]

Huh, I expected this to crush the competition in efficiency when restricted to 65W and it doesn't. But I also expected it to lose badly when not restricted to 65W and that also didn't happen. Plusses and minuses ends up being pretty good.

But wow how much faster this is than my aging i5-8400, which is considerably slower than the 10400 bottoming out those performance charts.

That's because every chip has a distinct sweet spot when it comes to optimal/peak efficiency. This is why generally speaking the xx80 chips are the most efficient GPU's out there. For the 13400f that sweet spot could be 35-55W also depending on the silicon lottery.