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 i5-13400 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£220PassMark multi-core score:23850N. of physical cores:10CPU boost clock speed:4.6 GHzCPU socket:LGA1700TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i5-13400 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications, 7 expert and video reviews and 2 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i5-13400
7.7/10

Overall score

Score
7.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment 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 86% of models
Score components

40%

7.6

Technical score

25%

7.6

Reviews score

25%

7.6

List score

10%

8.7

Sentiment score

▲Better than 86% of processors
8.2

Value for money

Value for money
8.2/ 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 93% of models
Score components

70%

7.7

Overall score

30%

9.4

Price

★Better than 93%
7.6

Technical score

Technical score
7.6/ 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 79% of models
Score components

60%

7.7

Performance

18%

7.4

Architecture

10%

8.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.7

Platform

1%

7.2

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 79%
7.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.6/ 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
▲ Better than 50% of models

80%

7.4

Average grade

20%

8.4

Popularity

Grades by review (7)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 6 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▲Better than 50%
7.6

List score

List score
7.6/ 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 25% 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 (2)
List score: in 2 of 85 lists (2%)
★Better than 94%
  • intel-core-i5-13400
intel-core-i5-13400
Where to buy
*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.

What reviewers say about the Intel Core i5-13400

Based on 0 · 6

Reviewers praise its cool, efficient running and productivity performance, but are split on gaming and unimpressed by Intel's lineup.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Processors model ranking

Ranked #71 of 558 models in Processors (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i5-13400

Technical score
Technical score
7.6/ 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 79% of models
Score components:

60%

7.7

Performance

18%

7.4

Architecture

10%

8.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.7

Platform

1%

7.2

Integrated graphics

7.6
Reviews score
7.6
List score
7.6
Value for money
Value for money
8.2/ 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 93% of models
Score components:

70%

7.7

Overall score

30%

9.4

Price

8.2
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
Z790, H770, B760, Z690, H670, B660, H610
This processor supports Z790, H770, B760, Z690, H670, B660, H610 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 84.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
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
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA instruction sets, which is broader support than 49.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
N. of physical cores
10
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 10 CPU cores, which is more than 75.2% of processors and equal to 4.6% of processors.
CPU threads
16
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 16 CPU threads, which is more than 69% of processors and equal to 14.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.6 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.6 GHz which is higher than that of 59.9% of processors and equal to that of 4.7% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
6x 2.5 GHz & 4x 1.8 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 6x2.5 GHz & 4x1.8 GHz which is higher than that of 69.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
23,850
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 23,850 in PassMark, which is higher than 77.9% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
20 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 20 MB which is larger than that of 78.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
L2 cache
9.5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 9.5 MB which is larger than that of 77.2% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
L1 cache
800 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 800 KB which is larger than that of 81% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% 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)
4,800 MHz
This processor supports XMP/EXPO memory speeds up to 4,800 MHz, which is higher than that of 94.1% of processors and equal to 0.4% of processors.
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
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 730
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 730 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 54.4% of processors and equal to that in 2.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.1% of processors and equal to 20.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode)
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 61.3% of processors and equal to 10.3% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
148 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 148 W which is higher than that of 80.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 4.4% of processors and equal to that of 85.3% of processors.
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel Core i5-13400 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.08x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (23,850 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    23,850 vs 11,469
  • 92.4% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (10,022 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    10,022 vs 5,209
  • 2.16x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (6,055 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    6,055 vs 2,804.5
  • 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
  • 39.6% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,572 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,572 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
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 4 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (10 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    10 vs 6
  • 13.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.6/ 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
    ▲ Better than 50% of models

    80%

    7.4

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 6 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.6 vs 6.7
  • 20.8% higher sentiment score
    8.7 vs 7.2
  • 12.7% better value for money
    Intel Core i5-13400 has better value for money than the average processor (8.21 vs 7.3).
    8.21 vs 7.29
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1700 vs FP5).
    LGA1700 vs FP5
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 3 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2023 vs 2020).
    January 2023
    2023 vs 2020
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • 2.08x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (23,850 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    23,850 vs 11,469
  • 92.4% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (10,022 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    10,022 vs 5,209
  • 2.16x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (6,055 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    6,055 vs 2,804.5
  • 39.6% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,572 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,572 vs 2,558
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 4 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (10 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    10 vs 6
  • 48% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,272 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,272 vs 1,535
  • 40.4% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (688 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    688 vs 490
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x2.5 GHz & 4x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    6x2.5 GHz & 4x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 4.5% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 2 wider front-end design
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    P-core 6, E-core 3
    6 vs 4
  • 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.
    E-core module: 2 MB shared
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 3.17x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (9.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    9.5 MB vs 3 MB
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • 2.08x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (800 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    800 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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
  • 2.22x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (20 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    20 MB vs 9 MB
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 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 (4,800 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    4,800 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.31x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (148 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    148 W vs 64 W
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 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
  • 21.5% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (215 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    215 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 2.6% lower list score
    List score
    7.6/ 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 25% 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 (2)
    List score: in 2 of 85 lists (2%)
    7.6 vs 7.8
  • 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
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 21.5% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (215 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    215 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.31x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (148 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    148 W vs 64 W
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

4.0
PC H/W and Tech Unboxings 🔥
≈ estimated
11/02/2023
Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and comparison
Verdict
Intel Core i5-13400 is not recommended, since the i5-12600K gives better benchmarks at similar pricing.
9.0
OC3D TV
≈ estimated
06/01/2023
Full review · gaming, thermals, power and content creation tests
Verdict
Intel Core i5-13400 is aggressively priced and likely to do very well as an entry-level option.
7.0
Tech Talks with Sunil
≈ estimated
30/03/2023
Unboxing and first look · packaging and specifications
Verdict
Intel Core i5-13400 performs well for gaming and editing, but it needs a separate graphics card.
9.0
HACKTECHMX
≈ estimated
25/02/2023
Comparison · Ryzen 7 5800X and 5800X3D, gaming and power
Verdict
Intel Core i5-13400 is the clear best pick for budget gaming builds, with lower power use and a bundled cooler.
4.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
04/02/2023
Comparison benchmark · CPU and GPU scaling tests
Verdict
Intel Core i5-13400 is not worth buying at its asking price; wait for a much bigger discount.
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded
Shop video
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i5-13400

  • Excellent value for money, offering high core counts for the price point.
  • Strong multi-threaded performance due to the addition of four efficiency cores (E-cores).
  • High power efficiency with a relatively low 65W base TDP.
  • Versatile memory support for both DDR4 and DDR5 platforms.
  • Stays relatively cool during standard gaming and everyday tasks.
  • Significant performance jump in productivity compared to the previous i5-12400.

What customers don't like about Intel Core i5-13400

  • The included stock cooler is often described as loud or noisy under heavy load.
  • Single-core performance is somewhat lackluster compared to higher-end 13th gen models or AMD rivals.
  • Locked multiplier prevents traditional overclocking to boost speeds further.
  • Some games may experience micro-stuttering or lower performance in legacy titles.
  • Higher initial launch price compared to its predecessor, the i5-12400.

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-13400 is a versatile mid-range desktop processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, featuring a hybrid design of 10 cores (6 Performance-cores and 4 Efficient-cores) and 16 threads. It operates at a base frequency of 2.5 GHz with a maximum turbo boost of up to 4.6 GHz, supported by 20 MB of L3 cache and integrated Intel UHD Graphics 730. Its primary advantages include strong multi-threaded performance for productivity, broad compatibility with both DDR4 and DDR5 memory on the LGA 1700 socket, and a relatively efficient 65W base power rating that includes a bundled cooler. However, it lacks an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, exhibits relatively modest single-core gains over its predecessor, and the stock cooler can become notably loud under heavy workloads.

Compare Intel Core i5-13400 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 i5-13400 and other processors

No results found