The Intel Core i3-13100F Review: Finding Value in Intel's Cheapest Core Chip

34 Comments

View All Comments

• nandnandnand - Friday, April 21, 2023 - link

  Now that AMD is offering an iGPU on all current AM5 CPUs, it will be interesting to see if Intel changes its 'F' strategy in any way, which has been the norm for several generations in a row. Intel already cuts down EU count from 32 to 24/16 (UHD 730/710). Might as well go to 16 (50%) instead of zero graphics.
  
  It would also be nice to see Intel compete with AMD APUs. Put 96-128 EUs on a desktop chip.

• mode_13h - Friday, April 21, 2023 - link

  Thanks for the review, guys. Unfortunately, it didn't answer a key question I had: WHAT IS THIS CHIP?
  
  Was it made on Intel 7 or Raptor Lake's improved version? Does it have any silicon-level improvements or tweaks? Is it exactly the same die as the small Alder Lake desktop CPUs, but with the GPU disabled and maybe some microcode tweaks?

• nandnandnand - Saturday, April 22, 2023 - link

  I don't know if it was ever officially confirmed anywhere, but it should be identical to the i3-12100F, based on the same 6+0 die used to make the 12400/12500/12600 (non-K) on the same version of Intel 7. Just with 100 MHz higher base and 200 MHz higher boost clocks.
  
  Intel will get another chance to do something interesting at the low-end with Raptor Lake Refresh later this year. For example, a 4+4 based on a different die.
  
  https://videocardz.com/newz/upcoming-intel-raptor-...

• Otritus - Saturday, April 22, 2023 - link

  All 13th generation CPUs below the 13600K are made using Alder Lake dies. The i5s are made with Alder Lake's 8+8 design. The i3s are most likely made with Alder Lake's 6+0 design, as cutting from 8+8 down to 4+0 is probably less profitable compared to using 6+0. There is a Raptor Lake 6+0 die I believe, but Intel did not release it due to having a glut of Alder Lake dies.

• ads295 - Saturday, April 22, 2023 - link

  1. What's the most powerful GPU you could pair with this and some fast RAM?
  2. What games could that run?
  
  Trying to understand how this fits into a budget gaming build.

• Otritus - Saturday, April 22, 2023 - link

  The interesting thing about bottlenecks is that there is almost never a pure bottleneck towards any single component. This means you could arguably pair this processor with a 7900XTX to get maximum raster performance. The problem with this processor having 4 cores is that it is going to be a bottleneck in any modern game that isn't some simple indie game. The processor is however fast enough to hit 60 FPS in all older games and most if not all newer ones. AMD drivers have less CPU overhead than Nvidia ones, so AMD will be faster on this processor. You can easily get away with DDR4-3200 on this processor, and it can run all games. I probably wouldn't pair this CPU with anything faster than a 3070, but a 3060 or 6600XT seem pretty reasonable.

• valtteris_big_batteries - Saturday, April 22, 2023 - link

  Great review, something I've been thinking about for a long time. Does seem like going with an AM4 5600G achieves better points overall, but for situations like mine where I have a lot of spare legacy dGPUs from a longtime tech addiction, the 13100F makes a case in price.

• kkilobyte - Sunday, April 23, 2023 - link

  I really wonder what the point is to compare such low-end CPUs coupled with a high-end GPU?
  
  On amazon where I live (Belgium), the lowest price for the RX 6950XT is about 750€, and most references available are priced above 800€.
  
  So how is it a "good value for money for entry-level users" ? It doesn't have an iGPU, so you must factor that in the total cost. For reference, a GT710 (which is really scrapping the bottom of the barrel) is priced at around 50€ on amazon. The 13100F is listed there at 125€, while the Ryzen 5600G is at 132€. So, if you factor the GPU price in, that becomes a 132 vs 175€ comparaison, adding that the Ryzen iGPU is better than a GT710. Even if you add the motherboard in the equation, the Ryzen will still cost less: there are several B550 motherboards listed at around 110€. So that would put the price of the AMD-based platform at 242€ vs 270€, and you'd get a more capable platform for most tasks, including gaming.
  
  So, what exactly is the point of that test, if not showing that picking the -F serie is not economically sound? I don't understand your conclusions at all, and think it is edging a bit on the dishonest side of things.

• abufrejoval - Monday, April 24, 2023 - link

  It's *your* fault, that I keep buying these new computers.
  
  But I couldn't do it if it wasn't for the kids and in-laws that I could push the older devices to.
  
  And in both camps there are still Ivy Bridge i7-3770 (not even K), which for some reason run quite happily at up to 4.2GHz using 16GB of DDR3. There are also some Kaby Lake i7-7700K (@4.8GHz), generally with DDR3-2400, because DDR4 was what DDR5 is now.
  
  In terms of GPU it's GTX980ti, GTX1070 typically and they are completely happy!
  
  Mostly because they have 1920x1080 screens.
  
  When I chance to look at them playing, I actually often feel a bit jealous, because my RTX3090 with the Ryzen 5950X somehow doesn't seem to get close.... at 4k.
  
  Of course, most of it is simply that they really know how to game, while I'm just a 10 minute dabbler (well, actually it's 10 seconds until I'm dead and 10 minutes until I give up trying).
  
  This discussion reminds me about the i3-7350K, a dual core Kaby Lake with hyper threading, which was hotly debated here vs. a "true quad" like the i5-7600K. I got one of those at the time and tried it and it was really rather capable; the main reason I eventually replaced it with a true quad was that those became rather cheap and I wanted to retain the value of the rest of the system, basically until today.
  
  Since I'm not a competent gamer, I might simply not be sensitive enough to notice the slight slow-downs that might be caused by "temporary core shortages" these days. But when I look at CPU graphs on my really big machines (16-18 cores), I don't see even recent games using lots of cores.
  
  Some, like the even the most recent version of Microsoft's Flight Simulator remain essentially single-threaded, others might use a little more but since truly balancing a gaming workload across 4, 8, 16 or more cores is very difficult to do, it's still rarely getting done.
  
  So if you are tight on the money, I'd also argue that the extra €50-100 are better spent on GPU, DRAM or SSD. At the same time extra cores will sleep saving thermal and electrical budget and give you the peace of mind that if you need the extra oomp, you can have it.
  
  I'd second the request to provide a bit of an overview on the current chips that Intel produces to navigate the near infinite number of SKUs they produce from them.
  
  And it seems that this really is a cut down version of what might already be the smallest (non-mobile) AD die, because for a Raptor Lake die, such a chip sounds like 30% active surface area, hard to imagine as a real yield result.
  
  I realize that Intel itself isn't keen on having that information out in the public, but that's why we turn to Anandtech: to learn more than vendors preach already.

• Otritus - Monday, April 24, 2023 - link

  Modern games only need 6 cores to run properly. Consoles just got 8 proper high performance cores with SMT in 2020. In the future you will probably need 8 SMT cores or 6-7 SMT cores with little cores for background tasks. It's why Intel only maxes out with 8 P-cores before adding in little cores, and why the i5 still has 6 P-cores.
  
  The die used was Alder Lake's 6+0 die cut down into a 4+0 configuration. Raptor Lake also has its own die of 6+0 I believe that Intel never used due to a glut of Alder Lake dies.