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 i5-13400F review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£170PassMark multi-core score:24870N. of physical cores:10CPU boost clock speed:4.6 GHzCPU socket:LGA1700TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i5-13400F Review: Compare 168 technical specifications, 16 expert and video reviews and 6 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i5-13400F
7.8/10

Overall score

Score
7.8/ 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 86% of models
Score components

40%

7.6

Technical score

25%

8.1

Reviews score

15%

8.3

List score

10%

7.3

Sentiment score

10%

7.6

User score

▲Better than 86% of processors
8.4

Value for money

Value for money
8.4/ 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 96% of models
Score components

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

★Better than 96%
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%

7.3

Architecture

10%

8.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.9

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 79%
8.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.1/ 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 79% of models

80%

7.9

Average grade

20%

9.1

Popularity

Grades by review (16)
7 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 9 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.
▲Better than 79%
7.6

User score

User score
7.6/ 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 59% of models

7.6

Mark 8.4 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%

6.5

Popularity

▼Worse than 59%
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 (6)
List score: in 6 of 70 lists (9%)
★Better than 97%
  • intel-core-i5-13400f
intel-core-i5-13400f
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...

Processors model ranking

Ranked #70 of 558 models in Processors (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i5-13400F

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%

7.3

Architecture

10%

8.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.9

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

7.6
Reviews score
8.1
User score
7.6
List score
8.3
Value for money
Value for money
8.4/ 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 96% of models
Score components:

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

8.4
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
Intel 600 Series, Intel 700 Series
This processor supports Intel 600 Series, Intel 700 Series chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 81.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% 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
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
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
24,870
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 24,870 in PassMark, which is higher than 79.4% 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
864 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 864 KB which is larger than that of 81.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% 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
What reviewers say
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)
?
Configurable TDP
?
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel Core i5-13400F vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.17x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (24,870 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    24,870 vs 11,469
  • 2.14x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (11,147 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    11,147 vs 5,209
  • 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
  • 41.8% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,628 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,628 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
  • 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
  • 20.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 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 79% of models

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    9.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (16)
    7 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 9 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.
    8.1 vs 6.7
  • 14% better value for money
    Intel Core i5-13400F has better value for money than the average processor (8.35 vs 7.3).
    8.35 vs 7.33
  • 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).
    2023 vs 2020
  • 2.17x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (24,870 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    24,870 vs 11,469
  • 2.14x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (11,147 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    11,147 vs 5,209
  • 41.8% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,628 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,628 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
  • 2 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    6 vs 4
  • 30.7% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2007 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,007 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 2.25x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (864 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    864 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
  • 2.95x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (14.6 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    14.6 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 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 (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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 45.2% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (257 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    257 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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 (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
  • 45.2% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (257 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    257 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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.
  • 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

9.0
Baba Tech Review
≈ estimated
13/03/2025
Detailed review · gaming, editing and benchmark tests
Verdict
Intel Core i5-13400F is a strong all-round choice for gaming and productivity, but heavy 4K editing is its weak spot.
9.0
Adi 4 u
≈ estimated
11/10/2024
Hands-on review · gaming FPS tests and editing use
Verdict
Intel Core i5-13400F is a very good processor for 1080p gaming and editing, but 4K and heavy AAA titles need more power.
4.0
PC H/W and Tech Unboxings 🔥
≈ estimated
11/02/2023
Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and recommendation
Verdict
Intel Core i5-13400F is not recommended; the 12600K is the better choice in the same price range.
9.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
08/01/2023
Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and editing tests
Verdict
Intel Core i5-13400F is a great CPU for mainstream gaming builds, especially if you edit too, though the 12400F comes close for gaming.
Not graded
Overview video

What reviewers agree on

Based on 7 · 9

Reviewers praise its multi-core muscle and efficiency, but single-core speed disappoints and opinions on gaming performance are split.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
28/03/2024
Lab test · Entry-level gaming chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-13400F is a capable entry-level gaming chip with many cores, but it lags in single-core speed and needs a graphics card.
9.0
notebookcheck.net
≈ estimated
21/01/2023
Benchmark review · Entry-level CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-13400F is a solid 10-core chip for gaming and work, though its multi-threaded results trail the Core i5-12600K.
8.0
club386.com
≈ estimated
18/01/2023
Hands-on review · Mid-range CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-13400F is a mid-range chip that runs cool and quiet, supports DDR4 or DDR5 builds, but ships without a cooler and has a locked multiplier.
7.2
geekawhat.com
✓ explicit
13/01/2023
Benchmark review · Gaming and productivity
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-13400F runs cool and beats its predecessor, but it trails the Core i5-12600K in Cinebench and needs a separate graphics card.
7.0
pcgameshardware.de
≈ estimated
13/01/2023
Benchmark test · Efficiency and apps
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-13400F is an efficient, quiet chip for content creators, but it falls short of the Core i5-12600K and the Ryzen 5 7600 in application speed.
9.0
charlestech.fr
✓ explicit
12/03/2023
Lab test · Mid-range CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-13400F is a mid-range chip that stays cool and steady at full load, but has no integrated graphics and cannot be overclocked.
9.0
notebookcheck.nl
≈ estimated
22/01/2023
Benchmark tables · Mid-range CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-13400F is a stable, power-efficient chip that beats the Ryzen 5 5600X in multi-core tests but trails the Core i5-13600K in single-core speed.

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i5-13400F

  • 10 cores and 16 threads handle multi-threaded work well.
  • The cooler is included in the box.
  • Multi-core scores are high, with 11147 in Geekbench 6.
  • Supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory.
  • Up to 192 GB of memory is supported.
  • PCIe 5.0 suits the newest graphics cards and SSDs.

What we don't like about Intel Core i5-13400F

  • No integrated graphics, so a graphics card is required.
  • Boost power of 148 W draws a lot of power under full load.
  • The multiplier is locked, so it cannot be overclocked.
  • Memory tops out at 4800 MHz, so fast DDR5 kits run slower.

Verdict

Ten cores and 16 threads are what set the Intel Core i5-13400F apart. It handles video editing, rendering and many browser tabs at once without slowing down much. Its multi-core scores are high, while single-core speed is good rather than top class. The cooler is in the box, so you can build a complete PC without buying one separately. It also supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, which helps if you are upgrading an older board. The main drawback is that it has no integrated graphics, so you need a separate graphics card. Its 148 W boost power also means the power supply should be sized with care. It suits a gamer or home editor who wants a strong processor and is happy to add a graphics card.

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

No results found