News Intel Core i5-13400 Review: Gaming Dominance at $200

[Amdlova]

INTEL has the best cheap platform right now. You can use cheap 2133mhz ram. And will still good horse power. Try that with ryzen system and you will have a bulldozer. Sorry AMD lovers, but intel has the crown.

 

[logainofhades]

INTEL has the best cheap platform right now. You can use cheap 2133mhz ram. And will still good horse power. Try that with ryzen system and you will have a bulldozer. Sorry AMD lovers, but intel has the crown.

Actually 2133mhz ram will kill your performance. The whole Intel isn't affected by ram speeds, is no longer a thing. GN's 10400/f review showed this. When paired with 2666mhz ram, that you would be forced into with a non Z 400 series board, the 10400f lost to a Ryzen 3, 3300x, on a cheap B450 board, with 3200mhz ram.

 

[btmedic04]

https://www.mindfactory.de/Hardware/Arbeitsspeicher+(RAM)/DDR4+Module.html/32/1160/39/60143:86006
VS
https://www.mindfactory.de/Hardware/Arbeitsspeicher+(RAM)/DDR5+Module.html/32/1160

Filtered for DDR4-3200 and DDR4-3600 RAM vs unfiltered DDR5. Even discounting that DDR4 has been around for longer and those sales play into the numbers, too, I think the difference is clear.

From the links you provided, the cheapest 32gb kit of ddr4 is about 72 euros while the cheapest 32gb kit of ddr5 is 112 euros. That's a 40 euro difference when compared to neweggs price difference of $37. You cannot compare prices of a 16gb kit of ddr4 to a 32gb kit of ddr5 as that is not an apples to apples comparison

 

[PaulAlcorn]

12600K comes without cooler. Even if we agree stock cooler is not suitable enough for 13400/13500 still you could end up with cheaper cooler for non-K. Although I could agree that at same price 12600K would be better buy - except (at least at my place) it is like 50$ more expensive. Or more specifically it seems like it is sold out at places that had lower prices.

Seems to be at $225, about ~$30 more than the 13400F and it doesn't come with a cooler.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

Depending on where you are microcenter has great deals if you are lucky to be near one.
local stores (hour 15- hour and a halfway ) have 5600x and prime B450m motherboards for $190.
It is an OK processor , but the article title is very "off".
But yeah, it will again be the go to budget gaming chip for mid range gamers. Last few generations have been the same. Slightly beats AMD for a little less money.
The mid range is the volume market.

Do you mean the 5600x is 'an okay processor' or the 13400?

 

[csbassplayer]

This actually isn't a better deal imo. The $160 12400F does lower the price of entry by $36, but the 12400F results in significant tradeoffs in performance — the 13400 is 7% faster in gaming, 4% faster in single-thread, and 16% faster in threaded work.

Calculating this by systems costs, you're looking at paying $2.42 per frame, which is 3% less than the Core i5-13400's $2.50 per frame, but that comes at a loss of 7% in gaming performance, not to mention the 16% in threaded that is worth at least something. Yes, the ultra-cheap 12400F would make a decent budget build, but it isn't quite the value you might think — the lower performance slots this into a lower tier. The chip is also currently on sale, and I don't think you'll see that price again after they clear stock.

Cost per frame, while a valid measurement in a lot of cases, can be a tad misleading. A lot of those costs are fixed, they won't vary no matter what, because they are required. Either CPU are going to require the same $75PSU, $120 MOBO (just for example), etc.... So the small variance in the CPU price RELATIVE to the price of the whole system ($50 out of the grander $1000 system build) gets diluted in cost per frame. You are going to spend the same $800 for the whole system before you spend your $200ish on the CPU part to finish it. So in a strict measure of cost per frame, you are correct, but again, for most home builders, the $50, is going to matter to them up front. Neither CPU is going to be a bottleneck in a budget system. They aren't being pushed hard enough.

Even though you stated the 12400F is on sale, according to at least Amazon's price history, the 12400F's average price for the last year is $169. Not sure if regional/international differences in play, but i have yet to see a 13400F south of the $209 it currently lists for. So again, 27%ish extra in costs, vs 7% more performance is questionable. In most cases, that $40-50 extra would yield more performance spent on most other system parts. $50 extra gets you from a 3050 to a 3060, or a 6600XT to a 6700 (or XT if you look) for example and would be a much more obvious increase. Productivity wouldn't be impacted, but again, most folks shopping productivity options aren't going with budget level SKUs anyway.

 

[Unolocogringo]

I see the 5700X at around $190. It is generally comparable to the previous-gen 12400 in terms of gaming performance, so it should be around 8% slower than the 13400F for similar pricing. It comes with an older platform and older architecture and we typically try to limit the number of chips in the charts. Besides, the 5700X only makes any kind of sense here if you completely ignore the 13400F... they have roughly the same pricing.

EDIT: We'll add the 5700X to the charts. Tale of the tape is that the 13400 is 7% faster at 1080p, 7.5% faster in multithreaded and 15% faster in single thread. Given the 5700X is only $10 less than the 13400F and comes on an old platform, it isn't a serious contender here. The 5700X also doesn't come with a stock cooler, so that adds cost.

Do you mean the 5600x is 'an okay processor' or the 13400?

Both .They perform similar with both motherboards fully power unlocked, and cost about the same without deals at launch.
Intel will sell boatloads of them. The middle range and lower is the"volume "market.
Both companies sell way more processors in this segment. Much more than the high end or halo market.

But if I turn off PBO and remove the 65watt power limit my 5600x performs similar to a 11700k/5800x in single thread and between a 12500,12600/5800x.
in multi threaded.
All by removing power limits and running 95-100 watts instead of the imposed 65watts.
No overclocking or PBO involved.

 

[KyaraM]

From the links you provided, the cheapest 32gb kit of ddr4 is about 72 euros while the cheapest 32gb kit of ddr5 is 112 euros. That's a 40 euro difference when compared to neweggs price difference of $37. You cannot compare prices of a 16gb kit of ddr4 to a 32gb kit of ddr5 as that is not an apples to apples comparison

Except I said nothing about price. In the post I quoted, you argued with someone else about what is sold more often, DDR4 or DDR5. And that was what I wanted to show you, but you either forgot what your own, original post even was about, or you are moving the goal posts around on purpose. Also, I didn't set any filters past RAM speeds (DDR4 only) and number of modules (both); the reason you don't see any 16GB DDR5 kits is simply that they don't currently sell them, which however doesn't change the fact that 16GB is still the standard and bought more often, so it indeed has a place in this comparison. But if you really have to go down that path, currently, at the time of this post, 32GB DDR4 costs 85€, while the cheapest DDR5 kit costs over 170€. So more than twice as much. Which, on a budget, is a huge, huge difference. Most people still buy DDR4; if you don't want to get that, and why 170€ is not attractive on a budget (neigher is getting 32GB of RAM when most people still only need 16GB, but since you are so adamant about that...), nobody can help you.

 

[btmedic04]

Except I said nothing about price. In the post I quoted, you argued with someone else about what is sold more often, DDR4 or DDR5. And that was what I wanted to show you, but you either forgot what your own, original post even was about, or you are moving the goal posts around on purpose. Also, I didn't set any filters past RAM speeds (DDR4 only) and number of modules (both); the reason you don't see any 16GB DDR5 kits is simply that they don't currently sell them, which however doesn't change the fact that 16GB is still the standard and bought more often, so it indeed has a place in this comparison. But if you really have to go down that path, currently, at the time of this post, 32GB DDR4 costs 85€, while the cheapest DDR5 kit costs over 170€. So more than twice as much. Which, on a budget, is a huge, huge difference. Most people still buy DDR4; if you don't want to get that, and why 170€ is not attractive on a budget (neigher is getting 32GB of RAM when most people still only need 16GB, but since you are so adamant about that...), nobody can help you.

I never claimed ddr5 sold more than ddr4 and am unsure where you got that from. I disagreed with the statement of 99% of people buy ddr4 3600cl18. That is simply untrue. The article used a 16gb ddr4 3600c16 kit and a 32gb kit of ddr5 at varying speeds. While 16gb of ram may be considered the bare minimum for a gaming build, it cannot be compared price wise to a 32gb kit in a review. You must have apples to apples comparison otherwise at best that is poor testing methodology and at worst, it's confirmation bias.

Per the links you shared yourself, here are the cheapest kits at 32gb capacity:

Ddr4 € 73.69
https://www.mindfactory.de/product_...gis-DDR4-3200-DIMM-CL16-Dual-Kit_1332101.html

Ddr5 € 113.28
https://www.mindfactory.de/product_...0U5-DDR5-4800-DIMM-CL40-Dual-Kit_1446119.html

Cost difference € 39.59

Where are you getting your prices for ddr5 for your argument?

Lastly, again using your like provided, you can buy 2x8gb (16gb) kits of ddr5

https://www.mindfactory.de/product_...6GB-DDR5-4800-DIMM-CL40-Dual-Kit_1452693.html

 

[Elusive Ruse]

Either Tom's has an Intel bias or the article was rushed:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdvWGEzYqg4

 

[Calle2003]

I can see many typos are corrected in the review but I spotted one which is still there and that’s the cache of 13500 which should be more than 13400 not the same. Please proofread the reviews before publishing them or else they seem less trustworthy, but I trust the benchmarks are correct which is the most important part of the review.