PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Celeron E1400 vs Core i5-13400F FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Celeron E1400 vs Core i5-13400F: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Celeron E1400

2008

Why buy it

✅Costs $143 less on MSRP ($53 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (470 vs 11,408).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.5 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($53 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on LGA775, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +1052.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Delivers 846.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 13.5 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $53 MSRP).
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA775 and older memory support.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Celeron E1400.

Trade-offs

❌
269.8% HIGHER MSRP
$196 MSRPvs$53 MSRP

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-13400F better than Celeron E1400?

Yes. Core i5-13400F is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1052.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 2327.2% better Geekbench multi-core, 3400.6% higher PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i5-13400F is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1052.9% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-13400F is the stronger fit. You are getting 2327.2% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 10 cores and 16 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core i5-13400F is the better buy right now. Core i5-13400F comes in 269.8% more expensive on MSRP at $196 MSRP versus $53 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1052.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 846.6% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 13.5 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core i5-13400F makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2008), a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of LGA775, and more multi-core headroom with 10 cores / 16 threads instead of 2/2. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

Celeron E1400 vs Core i5-13400F Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Celeron E1400

The Celeron E1400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 April 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 715 points. Launch price was $57.

Core i5-13400F

The Core i5-13400F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture. It features 10 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.6 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 25,029 points. Launch price was $196.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron E1400 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Core i5-13400F offers 10 cores / 16 threads — the Core i5-13400F has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Celeron E1400 versus 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F — a 78.8% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Celeron E1400 uses the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Core i5-13400F uses Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron E1400 scores 715 against the Core i5-13400F's 25,029 — a 188.9% lead for the Core i5-13400F. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 260 vs 2,407, a 161% lead for the Core i5-13400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 470 vs 11,408 (184.2% advantage for the Core i5-13400F). L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron E1400 vs 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F.

Feature	Celeron E1400	Core i5-13400F
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	10 / 16+400%
Boost Clock	2 GHz	4.6 GHz+130%
Base Clock	2 GHz	2.5 GHz+25%
L3 Cache	0 kB	20 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512 kB (total)	1.25 MB (per core)+150%
Process	65 nm	Intel 7 nm-89%
Architecture	Allendale (2006−2009)	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)
PassMark	715	25,029+3401%
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	16,211
Geekbench 6 Single	260	2,407+826%
Geekbench 6 Multi	470	11,408+2327%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron E1400 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core i5-13400F uses LGA1700 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Celeron E1400 versus DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-13400F — the Core i5-13400F supports 500% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i5-13400F supports up to 192 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 2300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron E1400) vs 20 (Core i5-13400F) — the Core i5-13400F offers 20 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: G31,P35,G41 (Celeron E1400) and H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F).

Feature	Celeron E1400	Core i5-13400F
Socket	LGA775	LGA1700
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 5.0+355%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200+500%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	192 GB+2300%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	20

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: No (Celeron E1400) vs VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F). Primary use case: Celeron E1400 targets Budget, Core i5-13400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Celeron E1400 rivals Pentium E2180; Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.

Feature	Celeron E1400	Core i5-13400F
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	No	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Budget	Gaming

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron E1400 was priced at $53, while the Core i5-13400F came in at $196. On launch pricing ($53 vs $196), Celeron E1400 was $143 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron E1400 delivers 13.5 pts/$ vs 127.7 pts/$ for the Core i5-13400F — making the Core i5-13400F the 161.8% better value option.

Feature	Celeron E1400	Core i5-13400F
MSRP	$53-73%	$196
Performance per Dollar	13.5	127.7+846%
Release Date	2008	2023

Search Celeron E1400 on Amazon

Search Core i5-13400F on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.