Intel Core i3-13100F Review: Higher Pricing, Smaller Gains

Ryzen comes roaring back.

Intel Core i3-13100F Core i3-13100
(Image credit: © Tom's Hardware)

Tom's Hardware Verdict

The Core i3-13100F is a rehash of the previous-gen model with slightly higher pricing and clock speeds, so performance gains are limited. It slots in as a solid performer in its price class, but the previous-gen Core i3-12100F offers almost the same level of gaming performance and often costs less.

Reasons to buy

  • +

    Strong gaming performance

  • +

    Support for DDR4

  • +

    Support for PCIe 5.0

  • +

    Single-threaded performance

  • +

    Sufficient bundled cooler

Reasons to avoid

  • -

    Higher pricing

  • -

    Comparatively slow in threaded applications

  • -

    No CPU core overclocking

  • -

    Limited memory overclocking

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

The Intel Core i3-13100F comes to market with big shoes to fill; its predecessor, the Core i3-12100F, built a reputation as the best budget CPU for gaming. Intel is obviously looking to repeat that success, but perhaps the Core i3-13100F follows in the footsteps of its predecessor too closely — the company repurposed the previous-gen design for the Core i3-13100, so it has the same four p-cores paired with an ever-so-slightly-improved 200 MHz higher boost clock of 4.5 GHz.

The 13100F addresses the sub-$150 budget segment, so pricing is critical. However, while Intel launched the previous-gen graphics-less Core i3-12100F at $104, it later quietly raised pricing. So naturally, that leads to higher prices for the new Core i3 models, too. As such, Intel's recommended pricing has jumped to $144 for the full-fledged Core i3-13100 model and $119 for the graphics-less 13100F model. That's a 12% and 15% gen-on-gen price increase, respectively.

Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • InvalidError
    Sweet! More price-performance stagnation!

    Making the new stuff only marginally more desirable than previous-gen stuff so more people and companies decide to hang on to whatever they already have for a while longer is a great way to reduce e-waste production.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    Mmmm, ahhh, yes! Very interesting numbers...

    Also replacement low/mid end CPUs are supposed to be released this year so if you are on a tight budget then might as well wait a bit and see if those are more worth it.

    https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-meteor-lake-cpus-for-desktops-incoming
    Reply
  • Amdlova
    That's a good cpu, Multi task is a meh ...
    Reply
  • Eximo
    As near as I can tell another big win for Intel is the idle power consumption. Which is useful for me as an HTPC CPU.

    Some people have pointed out the cause may be that the I/O die being on a larger node and having to power the communication between dies is more costly for Ryzen, but it is hard to tell when looking in from the outside.
    Reply
  • shady28
    Eh, these aren't really price comparable chips. The 13100F is $99 on Amazon right now, while the 5600X is $152 and the 5600 is $140.

    The 13400F is $185.

    Before someone tells me about Newegg prices on Intel (higher than Amazon)- the 5600X is $189 there, which makes it uncompetitive vs 13400F at Newegg. Amazon though, it's decently priced at $152.

    So basically the 5600X fits in an in-between slot in pricing. On either side of the 5600X/5600 +/- $40 sits a chip which is either notably slower (13100F), or notably faster (13400F).

    I think this all comes down to budget questions.
    Reply
  • bolweval
    InvalidError said:
    Sweet! More price-performance stagnation!

    Making the new stuff only marginally more desirable than previous-gen stuff so more people and companies decide to hang on to whatever they already have for a while longer is a great way to reduce e-waste production.
    Glass half full!
    Reply
  • baboma
    >The $150 Core i3-13100 is simply overpriced for a quad-core in 2023.

    It's amazing how an article can be obsoleted in the space of two days. On 4/29, price on i3-13100 has dropped to $110 on Amazon,

    https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B0BQ6CTTMK
    i5-13400 has dropped to $200,

    https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B0BQ68QB6R
    i5-13500 has stayed roughly the same (since March) at $248,

    https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B0BQ6CFDCX
    i5-13600K has also stuck with its initial launch price at $319 (probably because it's the most popular and thus in-demand),

    https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B0BCDR9M33
    i7-13700 has also dropped in recent days (4/17) to $350

    https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B0BQ6BNY56
    i7-13700K dropped (4/29) to $400,

    https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B0BCF57FL5
    On the high end, i9-13900 has a small drop (4/27) from $$590 to $566,

    https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B0BQ69VJ1S
    while i9-13900K has stabilized at $567 (from high of $740'ish), or same price as 13900,

    https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B0BCF54SR1

    Checking in with Alder Lake pricing,

    i3-12100 is $132, with low at $130, which means you can skip this in favor of 13100,

    https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B09NPHJLPT
    i5-12400 is $180; again, not worth it when 13400 is only $20 more,

    https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B09NMPD8V2
    i5-12600K is $234; worse bang/buck than i5-13500 at $14 more

    https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B09FX4D72T
    Reply