Although I like the article, I think the value comes in the form of the 5600g. I think the author should have focused attention not on the R7 but on the 5600. 20/30 USD for a more complete package seems to me like a better price/performance competitor.
That was my takeaway as well. It seemed odd to pick the F version of the 13th gen chip when everything else in the price segment had graphics. It seems an unfair bias against all of the other chips.
If I was looking at a machine in this range, I'd certainly look at the 5600G. Fortunately, I am not, I just retired a 3700X to my kids PC.
Why, oh why, are we pitting a 13100F against the 5300g? If you are dredging the bottom of the barrel, you need to look at the Ryzen 5500, which is going for $96 at amazon right now. It has NO video, matching the 13100f, has TWO more cores, and a higher boost than the 5300g. The two additional cores significantly extend it's useful life and opens higher end, more modern games to the user. It can go on any of the AM4 boards easily as well. In addition, having TWICE the L3 cache of the 5300g makes a notable impact on many titles. Yes, I doubt it wins in single threaded benchmarks, but in practicle use, its likely an overall netter choice!
Picking the competition for low-end chips is always a bit of a challenge due to the sheer number of options. There's the last-gen stuff, the current-gen stuff, the higher-tier last-gen stuff that's had price cuts, random SKUs that may or may not have received permanent price cuts, etc. And of course, what chips we have on hand, since AMD and Intel don't sample their complete product stacks.
We opted to focus on the true low-end parts, in part because that's what we have available, and because I'm not convinced a $99 chiplet Ryzen is going to hang around. But you're definitely correct that there are additional comparisons we could have made.
I like the article, but the better chip to compare is the 5600. It has double the L3 of the 5600g, which is just a 5500 with graphics. Wouldn't the extra cache help on some games/programs.
I would argue the 'practical' use these budget chips target greatly benefit from stronger, not more cores, and Intel wins that department when comparing Zen3 Ryzen 5xxx parts to 12\13 gen.
For this generation Intel technically only offers a single i3 tier, the i3-13100, which is further broken up into three configurations: the base version, the 35W TDP sion (i3-13100T), and finally a version without working integrated graphics, the i3-13100F.
I think you mean the 35W TDP version, instead of sion.
Dissecting a little deeper into the pricing, the Core i3-13100F costs roughly $25 per core, which drops to $22 per core on the Core i5-13600K, which is cheaper per core, but it should also be reminded that six of these are P-cores and eight are slightly lower E-cores.
Do you mean slightly slower E-cores, not lower? I'd also list them as slower, as E-cores are basically just Skylake and Golden Cove is much faster than Skylake.
I don't consider either chip to be a golden sample in any way. But given the nearly identical potential for lightly-threaded performance, when you run enough benchmarks at some point you're going to see the non-X win just due to statistical probabilities. Which is part of the reason why we never base our recommendations off of a single title.
Raptor i3s = 3.2% of 13th desktop full run production to date and for Alder 3.7%. 13100F itself = 0.004% of all Raptor and 12100F = 0.68% of all Alder.
For the week Alder full line = 69% more than all Raptor WW channel available today and on a full line run to date basis from day 1, Alder desktop production volume is 713% more than Raptor.
Specific Alder if you're looking for a deal, Alder suspect run end sales reward seen in end of quarter specific SKU volume gains indicate 900K_, 700K, 600K, 500, 400, 100, G6900 are offered moving into q2 sales (renewed) commitment as OEM q1 contract completion reward meaning no charge and in the week represent 69% of all Alder desktop available so a sizeable release of overage 'slack' product at run end. Knowing this, in the channel you get what you negotiate.
On the AMD side, 4500 dreg was AMD q1 channel reward and they sold well in PCs disguised as 3600.
There is very little 5300G/GE availability and adding 5500 Vermeer = 30% more than all Raptor available i3 in the week. 5500 itself is 600% more volume available than 5300_ and #3 available behind #2 5700G and #1 5600G at 161% more than 5500.
Did you not have an i3-13100 available? It seems unusually unrealistic to test a $100 CPU with a $630 video card, when they will almost always be used with their integrated video.
I have difficulty understanding the use case which saves $25 on the CPU price but requires an external GPU, when the absolute cheapest GPU is well over $25
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think if you're stressing the low-budget use case for these CPUs, you should test using their bundled CPU heatsink/fan just like most budget builders would do.
It'd be nice to know if builders must budget for an additional $25+ cooler if the included one isn't up to the task.
Agreed, e.g. Wraith Stealth can technically dissipate 88W from a 7600 but it's a challenge - I got better (~101W) from a Noctua NH-L9a with the fan duct add-on, and up to 110W with another 92x25mm fan blowing into the duct. Intel has a larger area to dissipate from, so would be interesting to compare.
Ready to save time and money when it comes to buying steel shots? Look no further than Shot Blaster! Our bulk steel shots offer unbeatable prices and quick, efficient ordering. Enjoy the convenience and savings of buying in bulk today - and start reaping the rewards. Don't wait any longer - buy steel shots in bulk from Shot Blaster and start saving time and money today!
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
34 Comments
Back to Article
porina - Thursday, April 20, 2023 - link
"Kaby Lake family of parts (8th Gen Core)" 8th gen was Coffee Lake.Interesting overall. I'd consider 6 core as entry level for anything other than the most basic tasks and 8 isn't that much a stretch.
Ryan Smith - Thursday, April 20, 2023 - link
Ahh, you're right. We got Kaby, and then Coffee, and then Coffee again. Thanks!adamxpeter - Thursday, April 20, 2023 - link
"but for an MSRP of $109 and a current selling price of $100 at Amazon" - then why $119 on the diagrams?Gavin Bonshor - Friday, April 21, 2023 - link
Thank you for pointing this out. I've changed it. When I made the graphs, that was the price, and I just forgot to update it.nrencoret - Thursday, April 20, 2023 - link
Although I like the article, I think the value comes in the form of the 5600g. I think the author should have focused attention not on the R7 but on the 5600. 20/30 USD for a more complete package seems to me like a better price/performance competitor.dwillmore - Friday, April 21, 2023 - link
That was my takeaway as well. It seemed odd to pick the F version of the 13th gen chip when everything else in the price segment had graphics. It seems an unfair bias against all of the other chips.If I was looking at a machine in this range, I'd certainly look at the 5600G. Fortunately, I am not, I just retired a 3700X to my kids PC.
lightningz71 - Thursday, April 20, 2023 - link
Why, oh why, are we pitting a 13100F against the 5300g? If you are dredging the bottom of the barrel, you need to look at the Ryzen 5500, which is going for $96 at amazon right now. It has NO video, matching the 13100f, has TWO more cores, and a higher boost than the 5300g. The two additional cores significantly extend it's useful life and opens higher end, more modern games to the user. It can go on any of the AM4 boards easily as well. In addition, having TWICE the L3 cache of the 5300g makes a notable impact on many titles. Yes, I doubt it wins in single threaded benchmarks, but in practicle use, its likely an overall netter choice!Ryan Smith - Friday, April 21, 2023 - link
Picking the competition for low-end chips is always a bit of a challenge due to the sheer number of options. There's the last-gen stuff, the current-gen stuff, the higher-tier last-gen stuff that's had price cuts, random SKUs that may or may not have received permanent price cuts, etc. And of course, what chips we have on hand, since AMD and Intel don't sample their complete product stacks.We opted to focus on the true low-end parts, in part because that's what we have available, and because I'm not convinced a $99 chiplet Ryzen is going to hang around. But you're definitely correct that there are additional comparisons we could have made.
DirtyLoad - Wednesday, April 26, 2023 - link
Hi Ryan,I like the article, but the better chip to compare is the 5600. It has double the L3 of the 5600g, which is just a 5500 with graphics. Wouldn't the extra cache help on some games/programs.
Samus - Sunday, April 23, 2023 - link
I would argue the 'practical' use these budget chips target greatly benefit from stronger, not more cores, and Intel wins that department when comparing Zen3 Ryzen 5xxx parts to 12\13 gen.Otritus - Thursday, April 20, 2023 - link
For this generation Intel technically only offers a single i3 tier, the i3-13100, which is further broken up into three configurations: the base version, the 35W TDP sion (i3-13100T), and finally a version without working integrated graphics, the i3-13100F.I think you mean the 35W TDP version, instead of sion.
Otritus - Thursday, April 20, 2023 - link
Dissecting a little deeper into the pricing, the Core i3-13100F costs roughly $25 per core, which drops to $22 per core on the Core i5-13600K, which is cheaper per core, but it should also be reminded that six of these are P-cores and eight are slightly lower E-cores.Do you mean slightly slower E-cores, not lower? I'd also list them as slower, as E-cores are basically just Skylake and Golden Cove is much faster than Skylake.
Ryan Smith - Friday, April 21, 2023 - link
Yeah, slower. Or more specifically, lower performing.Otritus - Thursday, April 20, 2023 - link
The performance cores of the Core i3-13100F feature a base clock of 3.5 GHz, with an all-core turbo of 4.5 GHz.I think you mean a base clock of 3.4GHz, not 3.5.
jeromec - Friday, April 21, 2023 - link
Good article so far (I only read page 1). Thanks.But why is there no mention that it is about desktop CPUs?
There are Core i3 CPUs for notebooks too.
WhatYaWant - Friday, April 21, 2023 - link
Some of the benchmarks looks a bit fishy. How can the 7600 beat the 7600x?meacupla - Friday, April 21, 2023 - link
der8auer did a video on this recently.It's silicon lottery. It's entirely possible that Anandtech has a golden sample 7600 with an average 7600X.
Ryan Smith - Friday, April 21, 2023 - link
I don't consider either chip to be a golden sample in any way. But given the nearly identical potential for lightly-threaded performance, when you run enough benchmarks at some point you're going to see the non-X win just due to statistical probabilities. Which is part of the reason why we never base our recommendations off of a single title.https://xkcd.com/882/
Bruzzone - Friday, April 21, 2023 - link
Raptor i3s = 3.2% of 13th desktop full run production to date and for Alder 3.7%. 13100F itself = 0.004% of all Raptor and 12100F = 0.68% of all Alder.For the week Alder full line = 69% more than all Raptor WW channel available today and on a full line run to date basis from day 1, Alder desktop production volume is 713% more than Raptor.
Specific Alder if you're looking for a deal, Alder suspect run end sales reward seen in end of quarter specific SKU volume gains indicate 900K_, 700K, 600K, 500, 400, 100, G6900 are offered moving into q2 sales (renewed) commitment as OEM q1 contract completion reward meaning no charge and in the week represent 69% of all Alder desktop available so a sizeable release of overage 'slack' product at run end. Knowing this, in the channel you get what you negotiate.
On the AMD side, 4500 dreg was AMD q1 channel reward and they sold well in PCs disguised as 3600.
There is very little 5300G/GE availability and adding 5500 Vermeer = 30% more than all Raptor available i3 in the week. 5500 itself is 600% more volume available than 5300_ and #3 available behind #2 5700G and #1 5600G at 161% more than 5500.
mb
TomWomack - Friday, April 21, 2023 - link
Did you not have an i3-13100 available? It seems unusually unrealistic to test a $100 CPU with a $630 video card, when they will almost always be used with their integrated video.I have difficulty understanding the use case which saves $25 on the CPU price but requires an external GPU, when the absolute cheapest GPU is well over $25
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.
crimson117 - Monday, April 24, 2023 - link
I think if you're stressing the low-budget use case for these CPUs, you should test using their bundled CPU heatsink/fan just like most budget builders would do.It'd be nice to know if builders must budget for an additional $25+ cooler if the included one isn't up to the task.
GreenReaper - Monday, April 24, 2023 - link
Agreed, e.g. Wraith Stealth can technically dissipate 88W from a 7600 but it's a challenge - I got better (~101W) from a Noctua NH-L9a with the fan duct add-on, and up to 110W with another 92x25mm fan blowing into the duct. Intel has a larger area to dissipate from, so would be interesting to compare.Steelshots - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 - link
Ready to save time and money when it comes to buying steel shots? Look no further than Shot Blaster! Our bulk steel shots offer unbeatable prices and quick, efficient ordering. Enjoy the convenience and savings of buying in bulk today - and start reaping the rewards. Don't wait any longer - buy steel shots in bulk from Shot Blaster and start saving time and money today!x387 - Saturday, June 10, 2023 - link
In the first table, the Base W number for the i3-13100T should be 35W instead of 58W.