Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7313

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7313

16 Cores32 Thrd155 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2021

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

38,938

+198.9%

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

About PassMark

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.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Why buy it

✅Costs $923 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,083 MSRP).
✅Delivers 126.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 36.0 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,083 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 155W, a 90W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7313.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7313 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 26,500).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7313, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7313

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +44.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 36.0 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,083 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌138.5% higher power demand at 155W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

EPYC 7313

2021

Why buy it

✅Costs $923 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,083 MSRP).
✅Delivers 126.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 36.0 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,083 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 155W, a 90W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7313.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +44.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7313 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 26,500).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7313, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 36.0 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,083 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌138.5% higher power demand at 155W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 7313 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7313 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-10400F is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 7313 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 44.6% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 128 MB vs 12 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7313 is the better fit. You are getting 223.5% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 966.7% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 12 MB).

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

EPYC 7313 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 7313 is 576.9% more expensive on MSRP at $1,083 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 44.6% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 126.5% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 36.0 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

EPYC 7313 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2021 vs 2020), 3D V-Cache and a much larger 128 MB L3 cache instead of 12 MB, and more multi-core headroom with 16 cores / 32 threads instead of 6/12. That extra cache should hold up really well in CPU-limited games and high-refresh builds.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core i5-10400F Benchmark Check

EPYC 7313 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7313
1080p
low	192 FPS	166 FPS
medium	152 FPS	136 FPS
high	123 FPS	116 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	91 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	147 FPS
medium	119 FPS	118 FPS
high	97 FPS	94 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	75 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	69 FPS
medium	70 FPS	59 FPS
high	55 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	38 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7313

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7313
1080p
low	326 FPS	505 FPS
medium	318 FPS	441 FPS
high	290 FPS	354 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	287 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	415 FPS
medium	292 FPS	372 FPS
high	267 FPS	307 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	242 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	255 FPS
medium	258 FPS	233 FPS
high	235 FPS	205 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	170 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7313

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7313
1080p
low	326 FPS	665 FPS
medium	326 FPS	555 FPS
high	326 FPS	518 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	451 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	504 FPS
medium	326 FPS	419 FPS
high	326 FPS	385 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	333 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	372 FPS
medium	326 FPS	290 FPS
high	289 FPS	260 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	209 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7313

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7313
1080p
low	326 FPS	903 FPS
medium	326 FPS	822 FPS
high	326 FPS	708 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	624 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	721 FPS
medium	326 FPS	628 FPS
high	326 FPS	538 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	460 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	517 FPS
medium	326 FPS	462 FPS
high	326 FPS	406 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	349 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7313

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 7313

Core i5-10400F

The Core i5-10400F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 April 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 4.3 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1200. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 13,029 points. Launch price was $155.

EPYC 7313

The EPYC 7313 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 15 March 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm+ process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 155 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 38,938 points. Launch price was $1,083.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 7313 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the EPYC 7313 has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 7313 — a 15% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 7313 uses Milan (2021−2023) (7 nm+). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 7313's 38,938 — a 99.7% lead for the EPYC 7313. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 26,500 (105.6% advantage for the EPYC 7313). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,736, a 17.7% lead for the EPYC 7313 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 15,264 (90.1% advantage for the EPYC 7313). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 7313.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7313
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	16 / 32+167%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+16%	3.7 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3 GHz+3%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	128 MB (total)+967%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512 kB (per core)+100%
Process	14 nm	7 nm+-50%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Milan (2021−2023)
PassMark	13,029	38,938+199%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	26,500+224%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	1,736+19%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	15,264+164%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 7313 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. The EPYC 7313 supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 8 (EPYC 7313). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 7313) — the EPYC 7313 offers 112 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and SP3,Milan (EPYC 7313).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7313
Socket	LGA1200	SP3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-3200
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	4096 GB+3100%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	128+700%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs AMD-V, SEV, IOMMU (EPYC 7313). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, EPYC 7313 targets Server / High-load computing. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 7313 rivals Xeon Gold 6326.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7313
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V, SEV, IOMMU
Target Use	Gaming	Server / High-load computing

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the EPYC 7313 debuted at $1083. On MSRP ($160 vs $1083), the Core i5-10400F is $923 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 36.0 pts/$ for the EPYC 7313 — making the Core i5-10400F the 77.5% better value option.