[ad_1]
The Intel Core i5-13400F ($196) has been available for some time now (and 14th Gen Core “Raptor Lake Refresh” chips have since debuted), but it stands out as one of Intel’s more affordable 13th Gen Raptor Lake Core i5 processors. Naturally, this makes it a go-to option for PC builders, particularly those building budget gaming PCs, but pricing isn’t everything. While it doesn’t bring enough punch to earn an Editors’ Choice award—that laurel stays stuck on the AM4-based AMD Ryzen 7 5700G for now—the budget-priced Intel Core i5-13400F is worth your attention for low-cost PC builds. (Just be sure to pair it with an appropriately budget-level graphics card.)Design: All Processor, No GraphicsBy design, the Intel Core i5-13400F is one of Intel’s most affordable Raptor Lake Core i5 processors. Its low price is a compelling selling point but has some negative connotations. Its core count is lower than most 13th Gen Core i5 processors, with six high-performance Performance cores (P-cores) and just four low-power Efficient cores (E-cores). Most other 13th Gen Core i5 processors, like the Intel Core i5-13600K, ship with eight E-cores alongside the six P-cores, which gives them a notable boost in multi-threaded performance compared with the Core i5-13400F.
(Credit: Michael Justin Allen Sexton)
Another key difference is that the Core i5-13400F is slightly cheaper than its non-“F” Core i5-13400 sibling because it lacks an integrated graphics processor (IGP). This also makes the processor a little more appealing to budget-strapped gamers, who can avoid paying for an IGP they will never use. We find merit in that argument, as you won’t typically use the IGP if you have a graphics card, but I prefer to buy something with an IGP instead where I can—”just in case.”
(Credit: Michael Justin Allen Sexton)
The IGPs on modern processors aren’t powerful options for gaming, but they have other uses. An IGP can power a second monitor that you aren’t gaming on, which saves all of your graphics card’s performance for running your game. Having an IGP can also be useful for troubleshooting issues that can arise later, particularly if your graphics card has problems.
(Credit: Michael Justin Allen Sexton)
Nonetheless, the financial advantages of dropping the IGP and those extra E-cores are undeniable. Instead of costing $319 like the Intel Core i5-13600K, or $220 to $230 for the Core i5-13400 (with an IGP), the Core i5-13400F was introduced at $196. That’s significant and could enable you to buy a more powerful graphics card, which would be far more impactful to your gaming experience in most situations than those extra E-cores the Core i5-13600K has.
(Credit: Molly Flores)
To make the Core i5-13400F even more tantalizing, it comes with one of Intel’s Laminar RM1 stock coolers. It’s a small thing, but it might work just well enough that you can avoid paying out for an aftermarket thermal solution, which saves you even more cash. We’ll see how this works out a bit later.Intel Core i5-13400F Test Setup and CompetitionI tested the Intel Core i5-13400F on a Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Master motherboard with two 16GB sticks of DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. This RAM was operated at the Core i5-13400F’s maximum officially supported memory speed of 4,800MHz. Other tested CPUs were operated at lower RAM speeds according to their respective supported maximums.A Cooler Master MasterLiquid PL240 Flux 240mm water cooler was utilized to keep the chip from overheating. Power came from a SilverStone DA850 PSU and all tests were performed inside Windows 11. An open-air Praxis Wetbench was used to hold all of the parts during testing. For the game tests with a graphics card, I used an Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 Founders Edition. This was also used in the system during all CPU and power tests as a display adapter.
As you can see from the chart, the Intel Core i5-13400F came closest to matching the Intel Core i5-12600K in terms of overall specs, with the Core i5-13600K a bit ahead with a few more cores and additional cache.AMD has several processors that compete directly with the Core i5-13400F on a performance level, a few of which you can see in the chart above. While the competing AMD chips have fewer overall cores, their more advanced manufacturing processes and architectural differences could give them the upper hand.Processor Performance and Bandwidth TestsKicking things off with AIDA64 gives us a look at how much raw bandwidth each processor has to work with. With its lower clock speeds and smaller cache pools, the Core i5-13400F turned in lower performance numbers here than most other Intel processors.
The Core i5-13400F performed competitively in the Cinebench R23 benchmark. It was among the slower chips that I tested, but it managed to slightly outpace the AMD Ryzen 5 7600 and the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X in the multi-threaded test. In single-threaded mode, however, the AMD competition was considerably faster. It’s also worth noting the Core i5-12600K was likewise faster in both areas.
I ran into an issue while running the PugetBench benchmark in Adobe Photoshop that caused the test to crash toward the end of the run each time. I’m not entirely sure why this happened and couldn’t find a way to fix it. The Premiere Pro test worked just fine, but it again showed Core i5-13400F behind all of the competition.Performance in HandBrake was less than stellar for the Core i5-13400F as well. It beat out the two Ryzen 5 processors again, but not by a wide margin. The Core i5-13400F did a little better in Blender beating out the Ryzen 5 7600X by less than 10%. Finally, in POV-Ray, we again get mixed results with the Core i5-13400F having just slightly better multi-threaded performance but a fair bit worse single-threaded performance.Gaming Performance TestsOverall, the Core i5-13400F’s performance in the CPU-focused benchmark results weren’t that impressive. The processor’s gaming performance, however, is arguably far more important given that this chip, without an IGP, is geared toward use with a dedicated card. Results from 3DMark’s Time Spy benchmark certainly suggested that the Core i5-13400F could do well here. Its performance was far ahead of the two Ryzen 5 processors in this test, and it also beat out the AMD Ryzen 7 8700G, coming close to matching the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X.
In F1 22, most of the processors I tested turned in similar performance numbers. A few of the AMD chips turned in lower frame counts and the Ryzen 7 8700G crashed while running the game at anything higher than 1080p, but all this suggests the Core i5-13400F is a better option for playing this game. Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy and Total War: Three Kingdoms also showed the processors all turned in results that were too close to each other to give an edge to any one.The legacy title Bioshock: Infinite gave us a lot more to consider. In this game, the Core i5-13400F performed worse than most of the other processors by a significant amount. This is a bit of a red flag, as it suggests it’s not able to pull the max possible performance out of the Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 that I used for testing. Only the Ryzen 7 8700G performed worse in this test. The 2013 release of Tomb Raider showed the Core i5-13400F perform once again on par with most of the other processors in the test, with the Ryzen 7 8700G still lagging.Power Consumption and ThermalsI measure the total power consumption of the system using a Kill-A-Watt power meter. As a result, our numbers show power consumption from all components and not just the CPU, but as the CPU is the main component being changed, the bulk of any difference shown in the charts here can be ascribed to the processor.
Power consumption measurements showed the Core i5-13400F was a bit less power-hungry than the other processors on the list. It beat out the other Core i5 models by a wider margin than I expected it would, and it similarly undercut all of the AMD CPUs. This low power consumption is in part what drove the Core i5-13400F to run so cool while under load.Testing Intel’s Laminar RM1Given its exceptionally low operating temperature, I tested the CPU with its stock Laminar RM1 cooler as well to see if performance would drop or temps would get too high.
Surprisingly, performance actually went up slightly, though this is still within the margin of error and more likely a fluke. Naturally, the stock cooler did not keep the Core i5 as cool as the water cooler that I regularly use, but it did a decent job of it nonetheless. The max temperature it reached was just 76 degrees C, which is well within the safety limits of the processor and fine for everyday use.The stock cooler was still a bit of a disappointment, though, as it got distractingly loud during testing. Intel advertises that the cooler’s noise production should only be 29dBA, which would be quieter than most coolers. Yet, when I tested it, when under load this cooler was far louder than the two fans and water pump on the Cooler Master MasterLiquid PL240 Flux.I don’t recall the Cooler Master ever getting anywhere near as loud as the Laminar cooler did, not even when used with Core i9 processors. So, while you can use the Laminar cooler safely with the Core i5-13400F, you may want to buy a different cooler just to avoid hearing the Laminar’s fan all day.Verdict: A Capable Budget Gaming ChipBudget products are never perfect. After all, the affordable options are typically arrived at by starting with a superior product and scaling it down. That’s exactly how the Core i5-13400F came to be, and in some places, its performance clearly lacks.However, Intel set the price of this processor at a highly competitive $196, which is considerably cheaper than all of the other chips we tested for this review. The AMD Ryzen 5 7600 comes closest at $229, but a difference of $30 can be decisive in the budget market. These two processors stand as close rivals.
(Credit: Michael Justin Allen Sexton)
Overall, the Ryzen 5 7600 is the better CPU. Not only did it perform faster more often than not, but it can be overclocked to unlock additional speed. It also has an (admittedly light-hitting) IGP, which not everyone will care about, though we do. At the same time, while the Ryzen 7 7600 is a generally faster processor, the Intel Core i5-13400F is a better-priced chip.It’s hard to go wrong with either option, at this point, and so we recommend them both as reliable and powerful-enough entry-level gaming processors for a first-time or budget gaming-rig build.
The Bottom Line
The Intel Core i5-13400F is a well-priced processor that’s a fine fit for a budget gaming PC, but don’t expect it to pair well with a high-end graphics card.
Like What You’re Reading?
Sign up for Lab Report to get the latest reviews and top product advice delivered right to your inbox.
This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links. Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe from the newsletters at any time.
[ad_2]
