
Core i5-13400F
Popular choices:

Core i9-10920X
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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 i5-13400F
2023Why buy it
- ✅+4.9% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
- ✅Costs $493 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $689 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 240.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 37.6 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $689 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 165W, a 100W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA2066 and DDR4.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-10920X across 10 shared CPU benchmark tests.
Core i9-10920X
2019Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +17.9% higher average FPS across 10 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅120% more PCIe lanes (44 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (15,458 vs 16,211).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 37.6 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($689 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
- ❌153.8% higher power demand at 165W vs 65W.
- ❌Older platform position on LGA2066 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.
Core i5-13400F
2023Core i9-10920X
2019Why buy it
- ✅+4.9% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
- ✅Costs $493 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $689 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 240.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 37.6 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $689 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 165W, a 100W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA2066 and DDR4.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +17.9% higher average FPS across 10 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅120% more PCIe lanes (44 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-10920X across 10 shared CPU benchmark tests.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (15,458 vs 16,211).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 37.6 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($689 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
- ❌153.8% higher power demand at 165W vs 65W.
- ❌Older platform position on LGA2066 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i5-13400F better than Core i9-10920X?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Core i9-10920X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 171 FPS | 274 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 240 FPS |
| high | 132 FPS | 202 FPS |
| ultra | 112 FPS | 174 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 143 FPS | 236 FPS |
| medium | 123 FPS | 187 FPS |
| high | 99 FPS | 153 FPS |
| ultra | 84 FPS | 134 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 81 FPS | 163 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 131 FPS |
| high | 59 FPS | 101 FPS |
| ultra | 46 FPS | 88 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Core i9-10920X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 545 FPS | 560 FPS |
| medium | 464 FPS | 459 FPS |
| high | 389 FPS | 381 FPS |
| ultra | 356 FPS | 345 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 458 FPS | 464 FPS |
| medium | 403 FPS | 396 FPS |
| high | 345 FPS | 334 FPS |
| ultra | 301 FPS | 289 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 280 FPS | 288 FPS |
| medium | 247 FPS | 247 FPS |
| high | 231 FPS | 228 FPS |
| ultra | 204 FPS | 199 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Core i9-10920X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 530 FPS | 647 FPS |
| medium | 449 FPS | 647 FPS |
| high | 415 FPS | 616 FPS |
| ultra | 375 FPS | 521 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 490 FPS | 647 FPS |
| medium | 422 FPS | 588 FPS |
| high | 382 FPS | 506 FPS |
| ultra | 343 FPS | 430 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 393 FPS | 522 FPS |
| medium | 331 FPS | 431 FPS |
| high | 296 FPS | 385 FPS |
| ultra | 246 FPS | 320 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Core i9-10920X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 647 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 647 FPS |
| high | 626 FPS | 647 FPS |
| ultra | 626 FPS | 647 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 647 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 647 FPS |
| high | 598 FPS | 647 FPS |
| ultra | 521 FPS | 587 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 535 FPS | 609 FPS |
| medium | 492 FPS | 543 FPS |
| high | 439 FPS | 487 FPS |
| ultra | 382 FPS | 425 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Core i9-10920X

Core i5-13400F
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.

Core i9-10920X
Core i9-10920X
The Core i9-10920X is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Cascade Lake-X (2019) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 19.25 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2066. Thermal design power (TDP): 165 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 25,875 points. Launch price was $299.
Processing Power
The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Core i9-10920X offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Core i9-10920X has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 4.8 GHz on the Core i9-10920X — a 4.3% clock advantage for the Core i9-10920X (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Core i9-10920X uses Cascade Lake-X (2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Core i9-10920X's 25,875 — a 3.3% lead for the Core i9-10920X. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 16,211 vs 15,458 (4.8% advantage for the Core i5-13400F). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 1,250, a 63.3% lead for the Core i5-13400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 12,000 (5.1% advantage for the Core i9-10920X). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 19.25 MB (total) on the Core i9-10920X.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core i9-10920X |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 10 / 16 | 12 / 24+20% |
| Boost Clock | 4.6 GHz | 4.8 GHz+4% |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz | 3.5 GHz+40% |
| L3 Cache | 20 MB (total)+4% | 19.25 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core)+25% | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | Intel 7 nm-50% | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) | Cascade Lake-X (2019) |
| PassMark | 25,029 | 25,875+3% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 16,211+5% | 15,458 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,407+93% | 1,250 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 11,408 | 12,000+5% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Core i9-10920X uses LGA2066 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-13400F versus DDR4-2933 on the Core i9-10920X — the Core i5-13400F supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i9-10920X supports up to 256 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 28.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 4 (Core i9-10920X). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 44 (Core i9-10920X) — the Core i9-10920X offers 24 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and X299 (Core i9-10920X).
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core i9-10920X |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | LGA2066 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+67% | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200+25% | DDR4-2933 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 192 GB | 256 GB+33% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 4+100% |
| ECC Support | No | No |
| PCIe Lanes | 20 | 44+120% |
Advanced Features
Only the Core i9-10920X has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the Core i9-10920X supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i9-10920X). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, Core i9-10920X targets HEDT/Workstation. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core i9-10920X |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | Yes |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d, EPT |
| Target Use | Gaming | HEDT/Workstation |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the Core i9-10920X debuted at $689. On MSRP ($196 vs $689), the Core i5-13400F is $493 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 37.6 pts/$ for the Core i9-10920X — making the Core i5-13400F the 109.1% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core i9-10920X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $196-72% | $689 |
| Performance per Dollar | 127.7+240% | 37.6 |
| Release Date | 2023 | 2019 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













