• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel Launches Lower-Priced 13th Gen Core Desktop Processors with 65W

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
47,677 (7.43/day)
Location
Dublin, Ireland
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard Gigabyte B550 AORUS Elite V2
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 16GB DDR4-3200
Video Card(s) Galax RTX 4070 Ti EX
Storage Samsung 990 1TB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
Intel today expanded its 13th Gen Core "Raptor Lake" Socket LGA1700 desktop processor family with several new 65 W mainstream models. These include all the SKUs that lack an unlocked multiplier, aren't meant for CPU overclocking, and come with slightly lower frequencies and tighter power-management than the unlocked K-series SKUs the company debuted the series with in 2022. The retail packages of these processors include stock Intel fan-heatsinks similar to those the company includes with its 12th Gen "Alder Lake" 65 W processors.

The series is led by the Core i9-13900, an 8P+16E core processor with P-core base frequency of 2.00 GHz, P-core maximum boost frequency of 5.60 GHz, E-core base frequency of 1.50 GHz and 4.20 GHz; and the full 36 MB of L3 cache available on the silicon. The processor base power value is 65 W, and the maximum turbo power is 219 W. Intel lists the MSRP of these processors at $550, a variant without integrated graphics, the i9-13900F, can be had for $524. The Core i7-13700 positioned a notch below, is an 8P+8E processor, with a P-core boost frequency of up to 5.20 GHz, a slightly better 2.10 GHz E-core boost, 30 MB of L3 cache, and the same 219 W MTP value. The i7-13700 is priced at $384, and the iGPU-disabled.



Things get very interesting with the way Intel sub-segmented the 13th Gen Core i5 series. The unlocked K-series 13th Gen Core i5 chips are 6P+8E, based on the same "Raptor Lake-S" silicon as the other K-series SKUs, with two each of P-cores and E-core clusters disabled. The locked Core i5 chips appear to be very different looking at their "total L2 cache" counts mentioned in the Intel specs. The Core i5-13600 and i5-13500 are 6P+8E SKUs, while the i5-13400 and i5-13400F are 6P+4E. This is a clever move by Intel to prevent the i5-13400/F from soaking up all sales away from the i5-13500/13600. But the question remains on their L2 cache sizes.

The i5-13500 and i5-13600 come with 11.5 MB of total L2 cache, which is only possible if the L2 cache per P-core is 1.25 MB (like the "Golden Cove" cores on "Alder Lake" chips, and if the L2 cache per "Gracemont" E-core cluster is 2 MB. These are in sharp contrast to the Core i5-13600K, which has 2 MB L2 cache per P-core, and 4 MB L2 cache per E-core cluster. There had been rumors that 13th Gen Core i5 and Core i3 65 W processors are based on the older "Alder Lake" architecture with generational increases in CPU core-counts; but Intel wouldn't confirm this. The L2 caches certainly seem to suggest that this is the case.

The Core i5-13600 is a 6P+8E chip with its P-cores clocked up to 5.00 GHz, E-cores up to 2.70 GHz; whereas the i5-13500 has slightly lower clock speeds of up to 4.80 GHz P-core boost, and up to 2.50 GHz E-core boost. The shared L3 cache size is set at 24 MB. Both models come with 65 W processor base power, and 154 W maximum turbo power values. The i5-13600 is priced at $255, and the i5-13500 at $232.

The Core i5-13400 and i5-13400F, as we mentioned, are 6P+4E chips. Both come with P-core boost frequencies of up to 4.60 GHz, E-core boost up to 2.50 GHz, and a shared L3 cache size of 20 MB. The i5-13400 is priced at $221 or just $11 away from getting four more E-cores and a little more L3 cache with the i5-13500; while the iGPU-disabled i5-13400F goes for $196. Both these chips have their maximum turbo power set at 148 W.


The only two Core i3 SKUs with this generation are the Core i3-13100 and i3-13100F, and are 4P+0E chips that are very likely based on the 6P+0E "Alder Lake" with two P-cores disabled. Each of the four P-cores gets 1.25 MB L2 cache, and the four P-cores share 12 MB of L3 cache. The i3-13100 is priced at $134, and the i3-13100F at $109. The i3-13100 has 65 W base power and 89 W maximum turbo power, while the i3-13100F lacks iGPU, and has a slightly lower base power of 58 W. Both chips have their P-core boost frequency set up to 4.50 GHz.

Besides these, Intel introduced a small lineup of 13th Gen Core i9, Core i7, Core i5, and Core i3 T-series power-efficient SKUs, with their base power set at 35 W, and maximum turbo power set significantly lower than the non-T parts, ranging between 69 W to 106 W, which should mean aggressive power-management that's as tight as H-segment mobile processors.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
So the 13900 is the most efficient cpu on planet earth out of the box. Holy...
 
Some weird pricing going on here.

13400 --> 13500, 200mhz increase P-cores and E-cores, 4 more E-cores, 4MB L3 and 2MB L2 cache, 770 graphics, $11 more.

13500 --> 13600, 200mhz increase P-cores and E-cores, $23 more.
 
Whew, love these days when they just blast out a bunch of chips. All of these are now in the database. Surprisingly NOT that many leaks regarding the lower end chips leading up to today, most of the focus was on the 13400 and 13900 but very little interest in the 13100/F or 13600/F. Curious to see how that changes now that we know prices, these are very competitive looking chips.
 
65W TDP with 150-220W power limits. Nice marketing there Intel...
 
I'm looking forward to seeing the reviews on the i5 13400 and i7 13700. Now bring on the B760 boards!
 
If I won’t ever overclock, is the 13900F a better solution than the K version? I don’t mind a small, say 5% performance hit if it can lower the power by a lot, and save some $ at the same time.
 
If I won’t ever overclock, is the 13900F a better solution than the K version? I don’t mind a small, say 5% performance hit if it can lower the power by a lot, and save some $ at the same time.
Yes. It's less expensive and lower wattage in PL2.
 
These include all the SKUs that lack an unlocked multiplier,

1672759064837.png


:confused:

What exactly is unlocked here, according to Intel?
 
So the "P" cores in these are "Alder Lake" generation based? So basically a rebrand from the 12th Gen versions + some E cores added?
 
There had been rumors that 13th Gen Core i5 and Core i3 65 W processors are based on the older "Alder Lake" architecture with generational increases in CPU core-counts

BOOO.
 
So the "P" cores in these are "Alder Lake" generation based? So basically a rebrand from the 12th Gen versions + some E cores added?
You shouldn't be surprised, the 13600k/13700k/13900k have already been out for a few months along with the reviews.

Raptor lake is a rebrand with a few tweaks (more cache, higher clocks, better ram support, E-cores added to the non-k chips)
 
I'm looking forward to seeing the reviews on the i5 13400 and i7 13700. Now bring on the B760 boards!
13700 is going to be an amazing cash sink when you can't get your DDR4 stable at even 3600 MT/s because of locked SA voltage. Could make sense paired with DDR5.
 
13700 is going to be an amazing cash sink when you can't get your DDR4 stable at even 3600 MT/s because of locked SA voltage. Could make sense paired with DDR5.
I don't see many peeps spending that kind of money on an i7 build and going with DDR4 unless they already have a 12 gen build and they're looking to upgrade.
 
Interested in the T parts for a NAS build I have planned, but traditionally availability of T parts is atrocious.
 
"All SKUs listed above support up to DDR5-5600"... yeah not the i5 or i3 SKUs...
 
Interested in the T parts for a NAS build I have planned, but traditionally availability of T parts is atrocious.
What do you lose if you buy a non-suffix CPU and lower the power limits, maybe do some undervolting too? The idle power consumption of all Intel CPUs is close enough to zero, monolithic AMD probably too, it's just that Ryzen I/O die that refuses to be frugal.
 
What do you lose if you buy a non-suffix CPU and lower the power limits, maybe do some undervolting too? The idle power consumption of all Intel CPUs is close enough to zero, monolithic AMD probably too, it's just that Ryzen I/O die that refuses to be frugal.

Works out of the box rather than me trying to reverse engineer a low power plan. The silicon is usually binned towards low power usage as well.
 
Damn no 6 + 0 SKU?
\ :
 
Works out of the box rather than me trying to reverse engineer a low power plan. The silicon is usually binned towards low power usage as well.
Reviews and tests of suitable low end hardware are also hard to find, and results are sometimes of dubious value. What mobo and PSU are you planning to use to build the NAS?
 
Reviews and tests of suitable low end hardware are also hard to find, and results are sometimes of dubious value. What mobo and PSU are you planning to use to build the NAS?

ASUS WS W680-ACE IPMI is the leading candidate atm, or maybe the AsRockRack W680D4U-2L2T, but thinking of shoving some Optane drives in the spare M_2 slots on the ASUS board for ZIL / SLOG. PSU I'll need to look around as the NAS case I'm using only supports SFX.
 
i5 13600 is catching my eye right now upgrading from a i5 10400f
i7 13700f is another option. 2 extra cores, more overall cache.

Have too see how well both stack up and if an extra $+100 is worth it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top