Intel Core i5 13400 Linux Performance - Raptor Lake 10 Cores / 16 Threads For $239

[Yalok]

Would love to see some OpenCL benchmarks of the iGPUs of the listed CPUs.

[ms178]

As this is an Alder-Lake rebrand without OC and AVX-512 support, 4-E-Cores don't offer me enough value to offset the lack of the other two features. Intel, get your act together and offer something more interesting to the market.

[jaxa]

The i5-13500 may end up being the most interesting Intel chip of this generation for a lot of people (and OEMs). It was supposed to be a ~$20 USD step above the i5-13400, but that nets you another 4 efficiency cores. 14 cores and 20 threads at that price isn't too shabby.

If everything was at MSRP, I think the two relevant Alder Lake rebrands are the i5-13500 and i5-13400F. Step it up to $232 for 6+8 cores, more cache, better iGPU, or step down to $196 and lose the weaker iGPU. If the difference between 13500 and 13400 is $11, there's no reason to get the 13400.

But if it isn't like that in street pricing, whatever.

[edwaleni]

Interesting strategies at play here.

Intel going for the P+E route and AMD going for the P+HP route.

It's a race in 2 directions, who can get their core to power up for max performance, and when needed get the core back down for idling.

Intel has chosen to offset their high ceiling by providing 2 weak cores, AMD has chosen to give you a ceiling and a yet higher ceiling, and idling them all as needed.

[schmidtbag]

As someone who was really considering 13th gen, with either a 13400 or 13500, I'm rather disappointed by the results.

[milkylainen]

Its a high level design tradeoff for the multi chip thing.
But (if you dont want to buy an AMD APU) it should get better as packaging tech gets better (which both Intel and TSMC have in the pipe).

Probably a bunch of design tradeoffs to discuss regarding this and that AMD is well aware.
But from an end (home) user perspective, I'm just saying that the consumption isn't ideal over time.

[otoomet]

You are misunderstanding that the other site is running benchmarks with max / unlimited power settings and water cooling. The sustained 4.5GHz P / 3.5GHz E all core clocks they are showing are only possible when you remove the power limits. With the default 65W PL1 setting, they'd only be running at ~3GHz.

I suspect something along these lines.. But I do not see anything about the motherboard power limits mentioned in the text, neither in this review nor in what overclockers do... Do I miss something?

[torsionbar28]

I miss the days when the published TDP actually used to mean something. What does a 65w TDP mean, if the chip actually pulls 154 watts with turbo enabled? Oh, and turbo enabled is the default setting, and that's how virtually everyone will be using it. So 154w is the real default TDP. The 65w number is completely meaningless, unless you first go into BIOS and disable your turbo. Who does that?? Sigh.

[vsteel]

I miss the days when the published TDP actually used to mean something. What does a 65w TDP mean, if the chip actually pulls 154 watts with turbo enabled? Oh, and turbo enabled is the default setting, and that's how virtually everyone will be using it. So 154w is the real default TDP. The 65w number is completely meaningless, unless you first go into BIOS and disable your turbo. Who does that?? Sigh.

Yes, if a chip pulls 154 watts of power, then you can think of it as the real TDP. It will output up to 154 watts of power.

Intel and AMD give TDP numbers but it is meaningless. Just look at the power draw to see how much heat they are going to generate.