Intel Core i5-13400 vs Intel Core i7-13620H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a remarkably split result: the Intel Core i5-13400 wins 11 of 23 recorded tests, while the Intel Core i7-13620H takes 12. The overall average benchmark scores are close, with the i5-13400 at 24280 and the i7-13620H at 24911, a difference of roughly 2.6% in favor of the mobile part. However, the distribution of wins is not even across workload types. The i5-13400 dominates in multi-core rendering and data compression tasks, while the i7-13620H shows clear advantages in single-threaded tests and specific math workloads.

The largest victory for the i5-13400 comes in passmark_extended_instructions, where it scores 19161 against the i7-13620H's 17513, a 9.4% advantage. This is followed closely by passmark_data_compression, where the i5-13400 scores 301481 versus 281335, a 7.2% lead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i5-13400 posts 15953 against 15176, a 5.1% win. The i5-13400 also takes Cinebench R15 multi-core by 3.4% (2358 vs 2281), 3DMark 16-thread by 3.7% (7315 vs 7056), and Cinebench R20 multi-core by 2.7% (8526 vs 8305). Data encryption favors the i5-13400 by 2% (15880 vs 15568), and random string sorting goes to the i5-13400 by 5% (30851 vs 29395). The i5-13400 also wins 3DMark 8-thread by 2.7% (5592 vs 5443) and 3DMark max-threads by 1.8% (7310 vs 7178).

Conversely, the i7-13620H's biggest wins are dramatic but narrow in scope. It crushes the i5-13400 in passmark_physics, scoring 1671 against 1244, a 25.6% margin. Similarly, passmark_find_prime_numbers shows a 25.3% advantage for the i7-13620H (99 vs 74). In 3DMark single-thread, the i7-13620H leads by 4.9% (1008 vs 959), and in 3DMark 4-thread by 4.4% (3621 vs 3461). The i7-13620H also wins 3DMark 2-thread by 4.1% (1963 vs 1883), passmark_integer_math by 4% (80948 vs 77721), Cinebench R15 single-core by 2.3% (263 vs 257), and Cinebench R23 single-core by 2.6% (1833 vs 1786). Passmark floating-point math goes to the i7-13620H by 1.6% (59762 vs 58786), and passmark_multithread by 2% (24192 vs 23719). The single-thread passmark score favors the i7-13620H by 1.4% (3589 vs 3538). Interestingly, Cinebench R20 single-core is the only single-threaded test won by the i5-13400, with a 2.6% margin (1203 vs 1172).

The pattern is clear: the i5-13400 excels in sustained multi-core throughput and compression/encryption tasks, while the i7-13620H counters with superior single-core responsiveness and two highly specialized math workloads. The 25.6% physics gap and 25.3% prime-number gap are outliers, but they represent the largest deltas in either direction.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates that neither processor is a universal winner. The i5-13400 is the better choice for workloads that scale with core count and cache, specifically rendering, compression, and extended instruction sets. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15953 is 5.1% ahead of the i7-13620H's 15176, and its 9.4% lead in extended instructions suggests an advantage for AVX-heavy or similar vectorized code. The i5-13400 also holds a 7.2% edge in data compression, which translates to real-world benefits in archiving and file transfer tasks.

The i7-13620H, on the other hand, is superior in single-threaded responsiveness and specialized math. Its 25.6% lead in physics and 25.3% lead in prime-number finding are substantial, though these are narrow workloads. The i7-13620H also wins passmark_multithread overall by 2% (24192 vs 23719), which is notable because it is a composite multi-threaded score. This suggests that the i7-13620H's thread scheduling or cache layout provides better aggregate performance in mixed workloads, despite losing dedicated multi-core tests.

For a desktop user prioritizing sustained all-core workloads, the i5-13400 is the data-backed pick. For a mobile user or someone who values single-thread speed and physics simulation, the i7-13620H is the stronger candidate. The 45W TDP of the i7-13620H against the 65W TDP of the i5-13400 also places the i7 in a more power-efficient bracket, though the i5's higher power ceiling likely explains its multi-core wins. The percentile rankings are nearly identical: the i5-13400 sits at the 76th percentile of all CPUs, while the i7-13620H sits at the 77th. The average benchmark scores differ by only 631 points in favor of the i7-13620H. Users should choose based on workload, not raw aggregate, since the win distribution is so polarized.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Raptor Lake architecture and the same 10 nm process node from Intel. They each have 10 cores and 16 threads, and both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration. Neither supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The release dates are identical, January 3, 2023, and both are marked as Active in production status.

The core differences lie in cache, socket, and integrated graphics. The i5-13400 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The i7-13620H has the same 80 KB L1 per core but doubles the L2 to 2 MB per core, and its L3 cache is 24 MB shared. This 4 MB L3 advantage and 0.75 MB per-core L2 advantage likely explains the i7-13620H's wins in single-threaded and physics-heavy tests, as more cache reduces memory latency for frequently accessed data.

The socket and market segment diverge sharply. The i5-13400 uses Intel Socket 1700 and is a Desktop part, while the i7-13620H uses Intel BGA 1744 and is a Mobile part. The PCIe lanes differ: the i5-13400 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the i7-13620H provides Gen 5 with only 8 lanes. This makes the i5-13400 more suitable for multiple GPUs or high-bandwidth storage in a desktop build. The integrated graphics differ as well: the i5-13400 has UHD Graphics 730, while the i7-13620H has UHD Graphics 770, giving the mobile part a slightly more capable iGPU.

Clock speeds favor the i7-13620H on boost: 4.90 GHz versus 4.60 GHz for the i5-13400. The base clocks are nearly identical, with the i5-13400 at 2.50 GHz and the i7-13620H at 2.40 GHz. The i7-13620H's 0.3 GHz higher boost clock aligns with its single-thread wins. The die size is known only for the i5-13400 at 215 mm²; the i7-13620H's die size is not recorded. The part numbers are distinct: SRMBFSRMBP for the i5-13400 and SRMJ0 for the i7-13620H. The launch MSRP for the i5-13400 is $221, and for the i7-13620H it is $502, though that figure reflects the mobile part's integration into laptops rather than a direct desktop comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-13620H boosts to 4.90 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-13400 boosts to 4.60 GHz.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both have 10 cores and 16 threads, and both are based on the Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400 wins, scoring 15953 against the i7-13620H's 15176, a 5.1% lead.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in passmark_find_prime_numbers, where the i7-13620H scores 99 versus the i5-13400's 74, a 25.3% advantage for the mobile part.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core i7-13620H has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core i5-13400 has 20 MB.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No, neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The i5-13400 is the clear winner for multi-core rendering and compression. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core lead of 5.1% (15953 vs 15176) makes it the better choice for video encoding, 3D rendering, and batch processing. The 9.4% advantage in passmark_extended_instructions (19161 vs 17513) indicates strong performance for scientific computing and vectorized code. The 7.2% lead in data compression (301481 vs 281335) benefits archiving tools and database workloads. The i5-13400 also wins all 3DMark multi-threaded tests (16-thread, 8-thread, max-threads) by margins from 1.8% to 3.7%, suggesting it holds up better as thread count scales. For desktop users with high-bandwidth needs, the 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes of the i5-13400 provide more expansion headroom than the i7-13620H's 8 lanes.

The i7-13620H wins where single-thread speed and specialized math matter. Its 25.6% lead in passmark_physics (1671 vs 1244) makes it the better choice for physics simulation in games or engineering tools. The 25.3% lead in prime-number finding (99 vs 74) points to strength in number theory or cryptography workloads. The i7-13620H also takes passmark_multithread overall by 2% (24192 vs 23719), which is a composite score, so it may handle mixed real-world multitasking better. Its boost clock of 4.90 GHz and larger L2 cache (2 MB per core vs 1.25 MB) explain its wins in 3DMark single-thread (1008 vs 959, a 4.9% lead) and Cinebench R23 single-core (1833 vs 1786, a 2.6% lead). The i7-13620H also wins integer math by 4% (80948 vs 77721) and floating-point math by 1.6% (59762 vs 58786), so for spreadsheet crunching or financial modeling, the mobile part is the data-backed pick. Its lower 45W TDP also makes it more suitable for thermally constrained systems, though that is a power envelope, not a performance metric.

In summary, the i5-13400 is the multi-core workhorse, and the i7-13620H is the single-thread specialist. The 11-to-12 win split in favor of the i7-13620H is narrow, but the magnitudes of the i7's wins in physics and prime numbers are far larger than any single i5 win. The i5's victories are more consistent across a wider range of standard benchmarks, making it the safer choice for general productivity. The i7's victories are concentrated in niche workloads, so users in those fields should prioritize it accordingly.