OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core i3-13100F review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£110PassMark multi-core score:14654N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.5 GHzCPU socket:LGA1700TDP (Thermal design power):58 W

Intel Core i3-13100F Review: Compare 168 technical specifications, 6 expert and video reviews and 7 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i3-13100F
6.8/10

Overall score

Score
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists, owners and ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 15%, Sentiment score 10%, User score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 52% of models
Score components

40%

6.6

Technical score

25%

6.6

Reviews score

15%

8.3

List score

10%

6.6

Sentiment score

10%

6.6

User score

▲Better than 52% of processors
7.8

Value for money

Value for money
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 73% of models
Score components

70%

6.8

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

▲Better than 73%
6.6

Technical score

Technical score
6.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 62% of models
Score components

60%

6.1

Performance

18%

6.7

Architecture

10%

8.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 62%
6.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 66% of models

6.6

Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.2

Average grade

20%

8.3

Popularity

Grades by review (6)
3 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
▼Worse than 66%
6.6

User score

User score
6.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 64% of models

6.6

Mark 8.2 is below the typical mark 8.8 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

8.9

Rating

20%

5.4

Popularity

▼Worse than 64%
8.3

List score

List score
8.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 15% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (7)
List score: in 7 of 73 lists (10%)
★Better than 97%
  • intel-core-i3-13100f
  • intel-core-i3-13100f
intel-core-i3-13100f
intel-core-i3-13100f
Best prices
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i3-13100F

Technical score
Technical score
6.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 62% of models
Score components:

60%

6.1

Performance

18%

6.7

Architecture

10%

8.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

6.6
Reviews score
6.6
User score
6.6
List score
8.3
Value for money
Value for money
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 73% of models
Score components:

70%

6.8

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

7.8
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1700
This processor uses the LGA1700 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 84.5% of processors and equal to that of 8.4% of processors.
Chipset
?
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 88.2% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.5 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.5 GHz which is higher than that of 53.9% of processors and equal to that of 5.5% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.4 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.4 GHz which is lower than that of 53.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
14,654
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 14,654 in PassMark, which is higher than 57.9% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 50.8% of processors and equal to that of 19.5% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 7
This processor is built on the Intel 7 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
L3 cache
12 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 12 MB which is larger than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 9.3% of processors.
L2 cache
5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 5 MB which is larger than that of 62.9% of processors and equal to that of 2.5% of processors.
L1 cache
320 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 320 KB which is smaller than that of 56.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5, which is newer than that of 77.1% of processors and equal to that of 10.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
4,800 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 4,800 MHz, which is higher than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-4800 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-4800 MHz, which is higher than that of 62.3% of processors and equal to 6.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
192 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 192 GB of memory, which is more than 82.2% of processors and equal to 6.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
58 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 58 W which is higher than that of 66.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
58 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 58 W which is higher than that of 66.3% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
89 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 89 W which is higher than that of 59% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
?
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel Core i3-13100F vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • 40.7% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,599 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,599 vs 2,558
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raptor Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Raptor Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 53.1% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,350 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,350 vs 1,535
  • 2.5x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 54.7% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,060 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,060 vs 5,209
  • 3x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (192 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    192 GB vs 64 GB
  • 62.2% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1700 vs FP5).
    LGA1700 vs FP5
  • 3 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2023 vs 2020).
    2023 vs 2020
  • 40.7% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,599 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,599 vs 2,558
  • 53.1% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,350 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,350 vs 1,535
  • 54.7% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,060 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,060 vs 5,209
  • 27.8% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (14,654 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    14,654 vs 11,469
  • 2x higher bus transfer rate
    This processor has a higher bus transfer rate than the average processor (16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raptor Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Raptor Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.5x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 62.2% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • 66.7% larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    5 MB vs 3 MB
  • 2.3x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (11.4 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    11.4 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • 3x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (192 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    192 GB vs 64 GB
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • 63.8% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (76.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    76.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 50% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4800 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    4,800 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 28.9% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (58 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    58 W vs 45 W
  • 39.1% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (89 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    89 W vs 64 W
  • 9.6% lower user score
    User score
    6.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
    How we count it
    Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
    Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 64% of models

    6.6

    Mark 8.2 is below the typical mark 8.8 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    8.9

    Rating

    20%

    5.4

    Popularity

    6.6 vs 7.3
  • 8.3% lower sentiment score
    6.6 vs 7.2
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • 28.9% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (58 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    58 W vs 45 W
  • 39.1% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (89 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    89 W vs 64 W
  • 28.9% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (58 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    58 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
05/01/2023
Hands-on review · gaming tests and 12th gen comparison
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-13100F is a good-value budget quad-core, a safe pick if it stays in stock at a fair price.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded

What reviewers agree on

Based on 3 · 3

Reviewers like how cool it runs, but most feel it brings little real improvement over the previous generation.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
28/04/2023
Lab test · Power efficiency
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-13100F is an easy-to-cool quad-core, but it draws more power than the Core i3-12100 for only a small speed gain.
5.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
15/02/2023
Benchmark review · Comparison with predecessor
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-13100F is a small step up from the Core i3-12100F, with the same Alder Lake chip underneath.
7.0
muycomputer.com
≈ estimated
09/04/2023
Bottleneck test · RTX 4090 pairing
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-13100F has strong single-core speed for light use, but its four cores hold back a GeForce RTX 4090 in many games.

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i3-13100F

  • Single-core scores of 3599 in PassMark and 2350 in Geekbench 6 suit everyday programs.
  • A 4.5 GHz boost clock keeps short tasks fast.
  • Memory support up to 192 GB leaves room for large projects.
  • DDR4 and DDR5 at up to 4800 MHz give you a choice of memory type.
  • A 16 GT/s bus transfer rate moves data quickly.
  • The box includes a cooler, so you can build without buying one.

What we don't like about Intel Core i3-13100F

  • There is no integrated graphics, so a graphics card is required.
  • Four cores may run out of breath in long video renders.
  • The multiplier is locked, so overclocking is not possible.
  • Boost power reaches 89 W, so the power supply needs to be sound.
  • Two memory channels cap bandwidth at 76.8 GB/s, which slows memory-heavy work.

Verdict

Quick single-task speed is the reason to pick the Intel Core i3-13100F, a Raptor Lake chip for a budget build. Its single-core scores of 3599 in PassMark and 2350 in Geekbench 6 show strong speed for lightly threaded programs, and the 4.5 GHz boost clock adds headroom. The memory side is strong too: the chip reaches 192 GB, and it works with DDR4 or DDR5 at up to 4800 MHz. A 16 GT/s bus transfer rate helps data move quickly between the chip and the rest of the board. The trade-off is that it has no integrated graphics, so a separate graphics card is needed from day one. It suits a buyer who wants quick everyday response and a cooler in the box, and who already plans to add a graphics card.

Compare Intel Core i3-13100F with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i3-13100F and other processors

No results found