Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7C13

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7C13

64 Cores128 Thrd225 WWMax: 3.68 GHz2021

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

76,363

+486.1%

Ryzen 7 8840HX

Ryzen 9 8940HX

Ryzen 9 7945HX3D

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

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 $1,840 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $2,000 MSRP).
✅Delivers 113.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 38.2 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $2,000 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 225W, a 160W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7C13.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7C13 across 29 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 37,000).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7C13, which brings 64 cores / 128 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7C13

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +20.5% higher average FPS across 29 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 64 cores / 128 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 38.2 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($2,000 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌246.2% higher power demand at 225W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

EPYC 7C13

2021

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,840 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $2,000 MSRP).
✅Delivers 113.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 38.2 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $2,000 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 225W, a 160W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7C13.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +20.5% higher average FPS across 29 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 64 cores / 128 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 7C13 across 29 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 37,000).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7C13, which brings 64 cores / 128 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 38.2 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($2,000 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌246.2% higher power demand at 225W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 7C13 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7C13 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 7C13 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 20.5% more average FPS across 29 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 256 MB vs 12 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7C13 is the better fit. You are getting 539.8% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 64 cores and 128 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 2033.3% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 12 MB).

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

EPYC 7C13 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 7C13 is 1150.0% more expensive on MSRP at $2,000 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 20.5% average FPS lead across 29 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 113.3% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 38.2 PassMark/$), 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 7C13 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 256 MB L3 cache instead of 12 MB, and more multi-core headroom with 64 cores / 128 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 7C13 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7C13
1080p
low	192 FPS	195 FPS
medium	152 FPS	159 FPS
high	123 FPS	129 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	100 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	160 FPS
medium	119 FPS	125 FPS
high	97 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	72 FPS
medium	70 FPS	60 FPS
high	55 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	39 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7C13

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7C13
1080p
low	326 FPS	267 FPS
medium	318 FPS	235 FPS
high	290 FPS	193 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	158 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	219 FPS
medium	292 FPS	198 FPS
high	267 FPS	167 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	133 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	135 FPS
medium	258 FPS	124 FPS
high	235 FPS	112 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	94 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7C13

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7C13
1080p
low	326 FPS	837 FPS
medium	326 FPS	698 FPS
high	326 FPS	650 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	574 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	602 FPS
medium	326 FPS	500 FPS
high	326 FPS	459 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	401 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	430 FPS
medium	326 FPS	336 FPS
high	289 FPS	300 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	243 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7C13

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7C13
1080p
low	326 FPS	977 FPS
medium	326 FPS	886 FPS
high	326 FPS	761 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	659 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	753 FPS
medium	326 FPS	657 FPS
high	326 FPS	560 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	481 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	541 FPS
medium	326 FPS	481 FPS
high	326 FPS	422 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	364 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7C13

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 7C13

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 7C13

The EPYC 7C13 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2021-03-01. It is based on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture. It features 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 3.68 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 225 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 76,363 points. Launch price was $5,000.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 7C13 offers 64 cores / 128 threads — the EPYC 7C13 has 58 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.68 GHz on the EPYC 7C13 — a 15.5% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 7C13 uses Milan (2021−2023) (7 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 7C13's 76,363 — a 141.7% lead for the EPYC 7C13. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,538, a 5.6% lead for the EPYC 7C13 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 37,000 (145.9% advantage for the EPYC 7C13). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 7C13.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7C13
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	64 / 128+967%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+17%	3.68 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+45%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	256 MB (total)+2033%
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	76,363+486%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	1,538+6%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	37,000+540%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 7C13 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. The EPYC 7C13 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 7C13). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 7C13) — the EPYC 7C13 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 (EPYC 7C13).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7C13
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 (EPYC 7C13). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, EPYC 7C13 targets Enterprise Server. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 7C13 rivals Xeon Platinum 8380.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7C13
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V
Target Use	Gaming	Enterprise Server

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the EPYC 7C13 debuted at $2000. On MSRP ($160 vs $2000), the Core i5-10400F is $1840 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 38.2 pts/$ for the EPYC 7C13 — making the Core i5-10400F the 72.3% better value option.