i5-13400F vs Celeron Dual-Core T1600
Aggregate performance score
Core i5-13400F outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T1600 by a whopping 2542% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Core i5-13400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2792 | 420 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 43 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 55.24 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron Dual-Core | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.62 | 23.08 |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 1 May 2008 (16 years ago) | 4 January 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $196 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Core i5-13400F basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 10 (Deca-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.66 GHz | 4.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | 667 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 80K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1.25 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 20 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 143 mm2 | 257 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 72 °C |
| Number of transistors | 291 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Core i5-13400F compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | PPGA478 | FCLGA1700 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Core i5-13400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Core i5-13400F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Core i5-13400F are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Core i5-13400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5, DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 192 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 76.8 GB/s |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Core i5-13400F.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 and 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.60 | 15.85 |
| Recency | 1 May 2008 | 4 January 2023 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 10 |
| Threads | 2 | 16 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron Dual-Core T1600 has 85.7% lower power consumption.
i5-13400F, on the other hand, has a 2541.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, and 400% more physical cores and 700% more threads.
The Core i5-13400F is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron Dual-Core T1600 is a notebook processor while Core i5-13400F is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Core i5-13400F, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
