OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Core i5 13490F Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£170PassMark benchmark result:26692N. of physical cores:10CPU boost clock speed:4.8 GHzCPU socket:LGA1700TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i5 13490F Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.8

Overall score

Score
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 84% of models
Score components

90%

7.8

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–²Better than 84% of processors
7.8

Technical score

Technical score
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 84% of models
Score components

60%

8.1

Performance

18%

7.8

Cache & Architecture

10%

8.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

5.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.7

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated Graphics

â–²Better than 84% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £170

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 i5 13490F

Technical score
Technical score
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 84% of models
Score components:

60%

8.1

Performance

18%

7.8

Cache & Architecture

10%

8.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

5.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.7

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated Graphics

7.8
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core i5 13490F has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 92% of models
Score components:

60%

7.8

Overall score

40%

9.6

Price

8.4
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
desktop
Processor type
desktop
â–² Better than 56% of models
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 56% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1700
CPU socket
LGA1700
â–² Better than 86% of models
This processor uses the LGA1700 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 86.2% of processors and equal to that of 7.2% of processors.
Chipset
Z790, H770, B760, Z690, H670, B660, H610, Q670, W680
Chipset
Z790, H770, B760, Z690, H670, B660, H610, Q670, W680
â–² Better than 86% of models
This processor supports Z790, H770, B760, Z690, H670, B660, H610, Q670, W680 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 86.1% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
10
N. of physical cores
10
â–² Better than 77% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 10 CPU cores, which is more than 77.1% of processors and equal to 4.3% of processors.
CPU threads
16
CPU threads
16
â–² Better than 71% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 16 CPU threads, which is more than 71% of processors and equal to 14% of processors.
Threads per core
?
CPU boost clock speed
4.8 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
4.8 GHz
â–² Better than 71% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.8 GHz which is higher than that of 71.2% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
6x 2.5 GHz & 4x 1.8 GHz
CPU base clock speed
6x 2.5 GHz & 4x 1.8 GHz
â–² Better than 71% of models
This processor has a base clock of 6x2.5 GHz & 4x1.8 GHz which is higher than that of 71.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Semiconductor size
10 nm
â–² Better than 52% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 52.4% of processors and equal to that of 19.1% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 7
Foundry
Intel 7
â–² Better than 66% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 7 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 66.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.9% of processors.
L3 cache
24 MB
L3 cache
24 MB
â–² Better than 82% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 24 MB which is larger than that of 81.5% of processors and equal to that of 5.8% of processors.
L2 cache
9.5 MB
L2 cache
9.5 MB
â–² Better than 79% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 9.5 MB which is larger than that of 78.9% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
L1 cache
864 KB
L1 cache
864 KB
â–² Better than 82% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 864 KB which is larger than that of 81.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5
â–² Better than 79% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5, which is newer than that of 79.1% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
4,800 MHz
Maximum memory speed
4,800 MHz
â–² Better than 67% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 4,800 MHz, which is higher than that of 66.7% of processors and equal to 5.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-4800 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-4800 MHz
â–² Better than 64% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-4800 MHz, which is higher than that of 64% of processors and equal to 6.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
192 GB
Maximum memory capacity
192 GB
â–² Better than 83% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 192 GB of memory, which is more than 83.4% of processors and equal to 6% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
no
Integrated graphics
no
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 87.6% of processors include integrated graphics.
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)
65 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 69.9% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Base power (PL1)
65 W
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 70.1% of processors and equal to that of 16.7% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
148 W
Boost power (PL2)
148 W
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 148 W which is higher than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
â–¼ Worse than 10% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 3.4% of processors and equal to that of 86.1% of processors.
Configurable TDP
no
Configurable TDP
no
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Core i5 13490F vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.52x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    26,692
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (26,692 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    26,692 vs 10,572.5
  • 2.25x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    10,886
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (10,886 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    10,886 vs 4,829
  • 54.2% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    3,856
    â–² Better than 87% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,856 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    3,856 vs 2,500
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    5.0 + 4.0
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Raptor Lake
    â–² Better than 72% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raptor Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Raptor Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 4 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    10
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (10 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    10 vs 6
  • 8 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    16
    â–² Better than 71% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 3.8x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    9.5 MB
    â–² Better than 79% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (9.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    9.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 27.6% better value for money
    Intel Core i5 13490F has better value for money than the average processor (8.37 vs 6.6).
    8.37 vs 6.56
  • Modern CPU socket
    CPU socket
    LGA1700
    â–² Better than 86% of models
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1700 vs FP4).
    LGA1700 vs FP4
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 3 years newer release date
    Release date
    2023
    â–² Better than 71% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2023 vs 2020).
    February 2023
    2023 vs 2020
  • Supports HMP
    Uses HMP
    yes
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    This processor supports HMP, the average processor does not. 22.7% of processors support HMP.
  • 2.52x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    26,692
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (26,692 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    26,692 vs 10,572.5
  • 2.25x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    10,886
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (10,886 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    10,886 vs 4,829
  • 54.2% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    3,856
    â–² Better than 87% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,856 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    3,856 vs 2,500
  • 4 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    10
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (10 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    10 vs 6
  • 8 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    16
    â–² Better than 71% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 11.6% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.8 GHz
    â–² Better than 71% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    6 x 2.5 GHz & 4 x 1.8 GHz
    â–² Better than 71% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x2.5 GHz & 4x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    6x2.5 GHz & 4x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Raptor Lake
    â–² Better than 72% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raptor Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Raptor Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 3.8x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    9.5 MB
    â–² Better than 79% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (9.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    9.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 2.5x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    1.25 MB/core
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/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
  • Uses big.LITTLE design
    big.LITTLE Architecture
    yes
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, the average processor does not. 20.5% of processors use a big.LITTLE design.
    P-cores + E-cores
  • 40% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2.4 MB/core
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2.4 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2.4 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 3x larger L3 cache
    L3 cache
    24 MB
    â–² Better than 82% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (24 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    24 MB vs 8 MB
  • 2.25x larger L1 cache
    L1 cache
    864 KB
    â–² Better than 82% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    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
    Foundry
    Intel 7
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • 16.7% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    10 nm
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (10 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    10 nm vs 12 nm
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    5.0 + 4.0
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    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
    Maximum memory capacity
    192 GB
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    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
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/DDR5
    â–² Better than 79% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    20
    â–² Better than 58% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • 67.7% higher memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    76.8 GB/s
    â–² Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (76.8 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    76.8 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 63.7% higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    4,800 MHz
    â–² Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4800 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    4,800 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.47x higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    148 W
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (148 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    148 W vs 60 W
  • 44.4% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    65 W
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • 21.5% larger die size
    Die size
    215 mm²
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    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
  • No integrated graphics
    Integrated graphics
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, the average processor does. 87.6% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • 50% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    65 W
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    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).
    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
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    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).
    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
  • 50% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 21.5% larger die size
    Die size
    215 mm²
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    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
  • No integrated graphics
    Integrated graphics
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, the average processor does. 87.6% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.47x higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    148 W
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (148 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    148 W vs 60 W
  • 44.4% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    65 W
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    65 W
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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

Not graded yet

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i5 13490F

  • Higher clock speeds (up to 4.8 GHz) and increased L3 cache (24 MB) compared to the standard i5-13400F.
  • Excellent value for money and price-to-performance ratio, often labeled as a 'budget gaming champion'.
  • Improved multi-threaded performance due to the 10-core (6P + 4E) and 16-thread configuration.
  • Strong gaming performance that can easily handle mid-to-high-end GPUs like the RTX 3070 Ti.
  • Low power consumption (65W base TDP) makes it efficient and easier to cool than higher-tier K-series chips.
  • Supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, offering flexibility for different motherboard budgets.

What we don't like about Intel Core i5 13490F

  • Limited availability as it is primarily a China-exclusive 'Black Edition' model, making it harder to find or requiring import.
  • Does not include a bundled stock cooler in the box, requiring an additional purchase for cooling.
  • Locked multiplier (non-K series) means it cannot be conventionally overclocked for extra performance.
  • Lacks integrated graphics (F-series), making a dedicated graphics card mandatory for any display output.
  • Minimal performance gains over the standard i5-13400F in some real-world workloads despite the spec bump.

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-13490F is a special edition 13th Gen Raptor Lake processor featuring a hybrid architecture with 10 cores (6 Performance and 4 Efficient) and 16 threads, reaching a maximum turbo frequency of 4.80 GHz. Designed for the LGA1700 socket, it stands out with a 24 MB L3 Smart Cache—a 20% increase over the standard i5-13400F—and supports both DDR4-3200 and DDR5-4800 memory. Its main advantages include superior budget gaming performance due to its higher clock speeds and expanded cache, alongside a manageable 65W base power (148W max turbo). However, its primary drawbacks are its limited availability as a China-exclusive 'Black Edition' release, the lack of integrated graphics, a locked multiplier that prevents traditional overclocking, and the absence of a bundled stock cooler in the retail box.

Compare Intel Core i5 13490F 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 13490F and other processors

No results found