To provide the best experiences, we and our partners use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us and our partners to process personal data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site and show (non-) personalized ads. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Click below to consent to the above or make granular choices. Your choices will be applied to this site only. You can change your settings at any time, including withdrawing your consent, by using the toggles on the Cookie Policy, or by clicking on the manage consent button at the bottom of the screen.
Technické uloženie alebo prístup sú nevyhnutne potrebné na legitímny účel umožnenia použitia konkrétnej služby, ktorú si účastník alebo používateľ výslovne vyžiadal, alebo na jediný účel vykonania prenosu komunikácie cez elektronickú komunikačnú sieť.
Technické uloženie alebo prístup je potrebný na legitímny účel ukladania preferencií, ktoré si účastník alebo používateľ nepožaduje.
Technické úložisko alebo prístup, ktorý sa používa výlučne na štatistické účely.
Technické úložisko alebo prístup, ktorý sa používa výlučne na anonymné štatistické účely. Bez predvolania, dobrovoľného plnenia zo strany vášho poskytovateľa internetových služieb alebo dodatočných záznamov od tretej strany, informácie uložené alebo získané len na tento účel sa zvyčajne nedajú použiť na vašu identifikáciu.
Technické úložisko alebo prístup sú potrebné na vytvorenie používateľských profilov na odosielanie reklamy alebo sledovanie používateľa na webovej stránke alebo na viacerých webových stránkach na podobné marketingové účely.
Exactly what I feared. The B0 stepping just as other Raptors is overvolted. A bit more power draw, and higher temperatures. The same rule as to the rest of Raptor CPUs applies – their efficiency and heat generation disappoint if you can’t undervolt them, which thanks to our beloved Intel is now almost impossible.
It would be very cool if at least some version of this processor overclocked all cores to 4.6(max boost) at least on some motherboards.
True, Intel could push the all-core boost of the 65W Core i5s (including 13500/F) a bit… the leap from Ci5-13600K will remain very significant (and not cannibalize) even after the 500 MHz boost you suggested for Ci5-13400(F).
sejak kapan ada i5 13500F ?
kalau i5 13500 dan 13500T
itu baru ada.
You’re right. My mistake in the comment, for which I apologize. The 13500F really doesn’t exist (and there is only a 13500). Thanks for pointing it out.
thank you for the information
The hashtag #7nm is wrong, this CPU is 10nm, the process is called Intel 7 probably to mislead customers.
https://www.hwcooling.net/en/intel-core-i9-12900k-megatest-amd-in-2nd-place-again/#comment-2474
Since the CPUIDs of Raptor C0 and Alder C0 are different, there is a possibility that Raptor C0 and Alder C0 are not exactly the same chip.
In that case, the process rules may not be the same either.
(Core i5-8400 and Core i5-9400, which used the same chip, had matching CPUID 906EA)
To make a definitive determination as to whether or not they are the same chip, it is necessary to examine them under an electron microscope.
Raptor B0 (MAX P8 + E16) CPUID B0671
Raptor C0 (MAX P8 + E8) CPUID B06F2
Alder C0 (MAX P8 + E8) CPUID 90672
Alder H0 (MAX P6 + E0) CPUID 90675
That is true. There could be some revision or respin. Personally I expect it’s more likely to be only minor changes though. It could be a change isolated to some metal layer, but perhaps it could even be just a difference in the microcode version that is present on the ship out of the box (I think the base microcode is different, as an effect the 13th generation processors do not work with BCLK OC unlike the 12th gen versions even if they are based on C0 die, for example).
There could also be changes to the manufacturing process even within the original Intel 7 technology. There always are “knobs” that can be tweaked. I think the Ryzen 3000 “XT” refresh CPU were said to have some manufacturing process tweaks and changes, even though it was still all within the envelope of the N7 process tech originally used for prior SKUs. Something like that could have been done by Intel to these C0 die 13th generation processors, too.
How does the performance of the Core i5-13400F Raptor B0 compare to the Alder C0 Lake model in terms of gaming?
We have a full article on this topic, which you can find at the following link: Core i5-13400F complete gaming tests (B0 vs. C0). W/o E cores too.
This fascinating analysis of the Core i5-13400F stepping variations highlights a crucial principle that applies equally to networking hardware: not all components with the same model number perform identically. The subtle but meaningful differences between SRMBG (Raptor Lake) and SRMBN (Alder Lake) steppings—including the more modern Intel 7 Ultra manufacturing process—mirror the nuanced variations found in 100-Gigabit network transceivers.
Just as these processors share the same specifications but exhibit different performance characteristics due to underlying architectural improvements, 100G transceivers https://serverorbit.com/network-devices/network-transceiver-modules/100-gigabit-en from different manufacturers or product generations can show varying performance in power efficiency, signal integrity, and thermal management despite meeting the same basic specifications. Your observation about the B0 stepping being prioritized for OEM markets parallels how certain transceiver variants might be allocated for specific applications or customers.
The detailed attention to S-Spec codes and physical differences demonstrates the same rigorous approach needed when selecting networking components, where compatibility lists, firmware versions, and manufacturing revisions can significantly impact real-world performance. This article serves as an excellent reminder that in both processors and networking hardware, understanding the underlying implementation details is just as important as comparing surface-level specifications.
The analogy with network hardware (and other components in general) is very fitting. Thanks for bringing up this topic. 🙂