Intel Core i3-13100F: Tailor-made for cheap gaming builds

Conclusion

Within the Raptor Lake-S CPU segmentation, it belongs to the lowest class (Core i3), but at the same time it is the fastest 4-core processor at all. AMD hasn’t had anything that directly competes with the Core i3-1x10xF processors in this segment for quite some time. So Intel, alone in the field, is pushing these processors in small steps, and the Ci3-13100(F) is already a very well “polished” foundation for budget gaming PCs.

Conclusion

The Core i3-13100F has leapt away from the Core i3-12100F more than it may seem at first glance. The difference in computing or gaming performance is small, adequate to the 200 MHz increase in clock speeds, but this is so at lower power draw, although on the contrary you might naturally assume that the power draw would be higher here. The silicon chip is “the same” in these processors, including the manufacturing process, but it seems to be better tuned. While Intel hasn’t officially stated anything directly on this, the specified TDP and PL2 values haven’t changed.

Power draw is always (even with the Ci3-12100F) well below 89 W (PL2), even with “unlimited” power supply. The Core i3-13100F’s power efficiency has increased between generations, especially under “medium” load in games. Of course, those 21% are only indicative, because they are shaped partly by a different board, partly by different memory (We tested the Ci3-12100F with DDR4-3600, the Ci3-13100F is tested with DDR5-5200), but the bottom line is that efficiency certainly hasn’t deteriorated, as it sometimes does after just increasing clock speeds.

The extremely low idle power draw also shows that Intel has really addressed the issue of power management in the context of achieving the highest possible efficiency. The idle clock speeds are half that of its predecessor (400 MHz instead of 800 MHz) and with that comes the need for lower power supply. It seems that with the “K” models of Raptor Lake, very low idle power draw is not so much in mind and for them the priority is to “kick-start” the boost as quickly as possible. The latter is more aggressive with 125W TDP processors that support TB 3.0. Whether this behavior pattern will be guaranteed on all boards we don’t know and will investigate further in the future.

The differences in gaming performance of the Ci3-13100F versus the Ci3-12100F do not need to be discussed in depth – if the performance is not the same, the edge is mostly on the side Raptor Lake, up to 3% (for example in Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla) in games where higher clock speeds weigh more heavily. But occasionally it goes up to 7–8% (for example in CS:GO or in DOOM Eternal).

But the charts also feature games that achieve higher fps on the Ci3-12100F, including Borderlands 3. Here, the use of other higher latency memories with DDR5 (5200 MHz/CL40), which we use with Ci3-13100F, may be largely reflected in the result. As you already know from the introduction of the article (and the methodology), we have tested the Ci3-12100F with DDR4 memory (3600 MHz/CL18). In sum, the Core i3-13100F still has an average advantage of 1–2 %. With the same memory, it could be 3 % at most.

Either way, whether you choose a platform with DDR4 or DDR5 memory support, the Core i3-13100F always has top-notch price/performance ratio. It’s only higher on the Core i3-12100F, which is even cheaper. The suggested price of the Ci3-13100F is higher by 10 EUR, but in real life it is more expensive in stores by twice this amount, 20 EUR.The Ci3-10105F (Comet Lake) also has a very good price/performance ratio, but compared to that processor, the Core i3-13100F is already significantly faster, although with a lower-end graphics card, the difference is not as noticeable.

If you were thinking of upgrading and replacing the Ci3-1010x(F) with the Ci3-13400(F), though, that might be a good idea. Not for gaming, but for significantly higher “multimedia” performance in a web interface or also in an office environment, where single-threaded tasks will be significantly faster, sometimes by as much as 60 %. There, the Ci3-13100F has a higher power draw, but its increase is relatively small compared to the percentage increase in application performance. The Core i3-13100F is a very power efficient processor at low load. But AMD processors are usually even more efficient. Such Ryzen 5 7600, which is closest to Ci3-13100F, achieves significantly higher clock speeds, along with them gaining a big edge in application performance, and yet the increase in power draw for that CPU is only negligible.

The more conservative clock speeds in single-threaded workloads put Intel’s TB 2.0-only processors at quite a disadvantage in this regard. However, the Core i3-13100F is not that affected, as AMD does not have an alternative to this processor at least on the AM5 platform (there is a price competitor on AM4 in the form of Ryzen 5 5500). By the way, the heat dissipation from the chip is efficient and quiet cooling after appropriate PWM curve adjustment can be achieved even with the box Laminar RM1 cooler. With it, you can comfortably keep the processor cool even at full performance and the operation still doesn’t have to be noisy.

When choosing a processor for a low-cost build, you definitely can’t go wrong with the Ci3-13100F. Considering the price range, it’s hard to point to any negatives that could be easily eliminated (weaker multi-threaded performance is a natural for this one and can be easily defended by the low price, and who misses the iGPU can pay extra for it in the form of the Ci5-13400). The single-threaded performance could already be higher though. So maybe next time…

English translation and edit by Jozef Dudáš

We are grateful to Datacomp e-shop for cooperation in providing the tested hardware

Special thanks also to Blackmagic Design (for DaVinci Resolve Studio license), Topaz Labs (for DeNoise AI, Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI licenses) and Zoner (for Photo Studio X license)

• Contents
• Intel Core i3-13100F in detail
• Methodology: performance tests
• Methodology: how we measure power draw
• Methodology: temperature and clock speed tests
• Test setup
• 3DMark
• Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla
• Borderlands 3
• Counter-Strike: GO
• Cyberpunk 2077
• DOOM Eternal
• F1 2020
• Metro Exodus
• Microsoft Flight Simulator
• Shadow of the Tomb Raider
• Total War Saga: Troy
• Overall gaming performance
• Gaming performance per euro
• PCMark and Geekbench
• Web performance
• 3D rendering: Cinebench, Blender, ...
• Video 1/2: Adobe Premiere Pro
• Video 2/2: DaVinci Resolve Studio
• Graphics effects: Adobe After Effects
• Video encoding
• Audio encoding
• Broadcasting (OBS and Xsplit)
• Photos 1/2: Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom
• Photos 2/2: Affinity Photo, Topaz Labs AI Apps, ZPS X, ...
• (De)compression
• (De)encryption
• Numerical computing
• Simulations
• Memory and cache tests
• Processor power draw curve
• Average processor power draw
• Performance per watt
• Achieved CPU clock speed
• CPU temperature
• Conclusion