Conclusion
In the vast majority of Intel Core i5-13400F processor tests (including ours), you’ve studied the results of the variant built on the Golden Cove cores from the Alder Lake generation. But there is also an iteration from Raptor Lake (with Raptor Cove cores). However, this processor is harder to get hold of, its availability is considerably weaker, but it is obtainable. You’ll find out if it’s worth the extra effort from the comparative analysis.
Which Intel Core i5-13400F processor is “better”?
If you’ve purchased a Core i5-13400F processor separately or are about to do so, you’ll most likely come across a variant that physically has a die from the last generation, Alder Lake. The larger one of course, with 8 P cores and 8 E cores natively – stepping C0.
In order to reliably obtain the stepping B0 (with the Raptor Lake die) you would have to really have your eyes set on it. The chances of you getting to this processor by accident are pretty slim. It’s only on sale as a “tray”, that is, without a cooler (just the bare CPU), intended primarily for aftermarket PC vendors. On the retail market, stepping C0 is common, which is already sold as a “box” (with the Intel Laminar RM1 cooler). Its order number is BX8071513400FSRMBN. The „tray“ variant is then CM8071505093005. Stepping B0 is only available in the “tray” variant (with order number CM8071504821107), which is popular especially in the OEM market. The significantly smaller supply of B0 variants will probably be due to the fact that Intel wants to use them as much as possible for more powerful models, and on the contrary, there is a surplus of older Alder Lake (C0) dies, which will not be gotten rid of elsewhere (as in the 65 W Core i5). The Core i3-13100(F) already uses a different die. Also AL, but “H0” (i.e. the smaller one, physically without E cores).
You can also recognize Stepping B0 (Raptor Lake) in a better catalog by the S-Spec code, which is SRMBG. It differs from Stepping C0 (Alder Lake, S-Spec code SRMBN) in the last letter of the designation – “G” instead of “N”. The physical differences, apart from the different markings on the IHS, are visible from the back, where there is a different SMD composition between the contacts. For stepping B0, these components are the same as in the more powerful Raptor Lake processors, and for stepping C0 again as in Alder Lake processors, that is, outside of those with a smaller die with only 6 P cores. CPUs that have the latter are Core i3s and Pentiums, but also the Core i5-12400 stepping H0.
Quite significant differences across steppings (H0 and C0) are also present in Ci5-12400, but in this generation it may be even more interesting. Last time it was about one of the dies being significantly smaller, but still manufactured using the same process (Intel 7). This time the difference in the size of the dies and their native features is quite a bit smaller, but the manufacturing process is different, with stepping B0 being the more modern Intel 7 Ultra. All parameters are otherwise the same, yet these processors may perform differently. And that’s what we’ll focus on in the next pages of the article.
Testing is performed according to standard processor measurement methods. But we don’t go through everything in order and the test set is on the smaller side. It contains those measurements (+ memory tests) in which, in addition to computing or gaming performance, we also record operational characteristics – power draw, temperature and achieved CPU core clock speeds.
Which methods, settings and conditions we use to measure each variable are described in detail in the following links – temperature, core clock speeds and power draw. Regarding power draw, just briefly note that it is measured with current clamps. And just so you don’t have to hunt for key components from other articles, the motherboard is Asus ROG Strix Z790-E Gaming WiFi (BIOS v0502) and the memory is Kingston Fury Beast (2×16 GB, 5200 MHz/CL40) with a 1300 MHz memory controller (Gear 2). The CPU cooler used is the Noctua NH-U14S.
In the vast majority of Intel Core i5-13400F processor tests (including ours), you’ve studied the results of the variant built on the Golden Cove cores from the Alder Lake generation. But there is also an iteration from Raptor Lake (with Raptor Cove cores). However, this processor is harder to get hold of, its availability is considerably weaker, but it is obtainable. You’ll find out if it’s worth the extra effort from the comparative analysis.
Performance tests
Computing performance
Gaming performance
In the vast majority of Intel Core i5-13400F processor tests (including ours), you’ve studied the results of the variant built on the Golden Cove cores from the Alder Lake generation. But there is also an iteration from Raptor Lake (with Raptor Cove cores). However, this processor is harder to get hold of, its availability is considerably weaker, but it is obtainable. You’ll find out if it’s worth the extra effort from the comparative analysis.
Memory tests…
… and cache (L1, L2, L3)
In the vast majority of Intel Core i5-13400F processor tests (including ours), you’ve studied the results of the variant built on the Golden Cove cores from the Alder Lake generation. But there is also an iteration from Raptor Lake (with Raptor Cove cores). However, this processor is harder to get hold of, its availability is considerably weaker, but it is obtainable. You’ll find out if it’s worth the extra effort from the comparative analysis.
CPU power draw curve
In the vast majority of Intel Core i5-13400F processor tests (including ours), you’ve studied the results of the variant built on the Golden Cove cores from the Alder Lake generation. But there is also an iteration from Raptor Lake (with Raptor Cove cores). However, this processor is harder to get hold of, its availability is considerably weaker, but it is obtainable. You’ll find out if it’s worth the extra effort from the comparative analysis.
Average CPU power draw
In the vast majority of Intel Core i5-13400F processor tests (including ours), you’ve studied the results of the variant built on the Golden Cove cores from the Alder Lake generation. But there is also an iteration from Raptor Lake (with Raptor Cove cores). However, this processor is harder to get hold of, its availability is considerably weaker, but it is obtainable. You’ll find out if it’s worth the extra effort from the comparative analysis.
Achieved CPU clock speeds
In the vast majority of Intel Core i5-13400F processor tests (including ours), you’ve studied the results of the variant built on the Golden Cove cores from the Alder Lake generation. But there is also an iteration from Raptor Lake (with Raptor Cove cores). However, this processor is harder to get hold of, its availability is considerably weaker, but it is obtainable. You’ll find out if it’s worth the extra effort from the comparative analysis.
CPU temperature
In the vast majority of Intel Core i5-13400F processor tests (including ours), you’ve studied the results of the variant built on the Golden Cove cores from the Alder Lake generation. But there is also an iteration from Raptor Lake (with Raptor Cove cores). However, this processor is harder to get hold of, its availability is considerably weaker, but it is obtainable. You’ll find out if it’s worth the extra effort from the comparative analysis.
Conclusion
The higher attractiveness of this (B0/SRMBG) or that (C0/SRMBN) Core i5-13400F stepping should be judged by the load intensity of these processors. At high performance, close to the limit of the maximum, stepping B0 achieved lower efficiency in the tests. Computing performance (in Cinebench R23) is indeed a percentage higher, but at the cost of 14% higher power draw. In a single-threaded load, at one-fifth to one-sixth the power draw, the situation reverses, and the short end is pulled by stepping C0. The Intel 7 Ultra variant is 4% faster while drawing up to 29% less power. At the same time, the clock speed of active cores contributing to the single-threaded performance is the same. With such a low power load, the benefit of a more advanced manufacturing process is clearly most evident in the form of higher B0 stepping efficiency.
At medium, typically gaming loads, stepping C0 is again a bit more efficient. However, this is only by a little bit. Stepping B0 can have up to a 5% advantage in gaming performance (and maybe more, we’ll see when we complete the multi-game tests later). Power draw at comparable performance, such as in Total War Saga: Troy, is virtually identical (54.8 vs. 55.6 W). Efficiency in games is very similar for both steppings.
In memory tests, the result of L2 cache latencies turns out to be quite surprising. We expected that its behavior could be the same as that of the Alder Lake die, since Intel originally locked the 2MB L2 cache to 1.25 MB for this model, so that it would not be any different from stepping C0. However, Aida64 measured significantly lower latency with stepping B0 (and the same outputs are also present in other “B0” processor models). This could mean that different behavior is occurring after all, but a difference of 29% (in favor of stepping B0) doesn’t really seem realistic. That’s too significant a reduction. Aida64 can’t seem to measure latency correctly for some reason, and it’s possible that its algorithm would need some fixing to give relevant results on these processors.
Heat is dissipated faster from the C0 silicon, although it’s the slightly smaller die of the pair. This may be due to differences in the properties of the TIMs or, from the perspective of the E cores, their position relative to the P cores. However, processor to processor this can vary – specially for stepping B0. The latter has double the number of clusters (4) for Core i5-13400F, and only 4 cores out of 16 are active (for C0 it is 4 out of 8). Thus, the temperature of E cores on B0 processors may also depend on the mutual distance from P cores, which have higher performance (with higher power draw, higher waste heat). On the tested processor samples there is a larger difference between the temperature of the P and E cores in stepping C0, where there seems to be less interaction. But with the generally low cooling requirements of Core i5-13400F processors, in practice these things don’t matter that much.
But the power draw at very low load (in “idle”) is nicely equal with these processors, which was not the case with their predecessors. The Core i5-13400F stepping H0 was significantly more efficient than C0 in idle. Now the percentage difference is also higher, but at such low levels it practically doesn’t matter. Whether the processor has 2.10 W (Ci5-13400F stepping C0) or 1.85 W (Ci5-13400F stepping C0) is almost irrelevant. The fact that such low power draw is achieved is fascinating on its own. Older processors, as well as current Raptor Lake models with an open multiplier, have significantly higher idle power draw. This is also because, for example, they don’t drop the multiplier to 4 (400 MHz), as is the case with the Core i5-13400F, and the minimum is 8 (800 MHz). And such a clock speed requires a more aggressive power supply for stable operation.
You will have to decide for yourself whether stepping B0 or C0 makes more sense according to the nature of your work. Everyone has some pros and cons. It depends on which characteristics you attach more importance to.
English translation and edit by Jozef Dudáš
Further reading:
- When E cores are disabled: Core i5-13400F vs. Core i5-12400(F)
- Core i5-13400F complete gaming tests (B0 vs. C0). W/o E cores too