Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 7402

CPU

GPU

Core i5-13400F

10 Cores16 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.6 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7402

24 Cores48 Thrd180 WWMax: 3.35 GHz2019

Popular choices:

••••i5-13400F•••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-13400F

10 / 16

25,029

0.0%

46,012

+83.8%

Ryzen 7 5800

Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS

Ryzen 7 7700X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen 9 9955HX3D

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

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 i5-13400F

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,587 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $1,783 MSRP).
✅Delivers 394.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 25.8 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $1,783 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,211 vs 28,546).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7402, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7402

2019

Why buy it

✅+76.1% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅+60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 25.8 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($1,783 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

EPYC 7402

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,587 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $1,783 MSRP).
✅Delivers 394.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 25.8 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $1,783 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅+76.1% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅+60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,211 vs 28,546).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7402, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 25.8 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($1,783 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 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 EPYC 7402?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7402 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-13400F is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7402 is the better fit. You are getting 76.1% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 24 cores and 48 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).

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

Core i5-13400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-13400F is $1,587 cheaper on MSRP at $196 MSRP versus $1,783 MSRP, and it gives you a 7.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that EPYC 7402 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 76.1% better Cinebench R23 multi-core. It is also 394.8% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 25.8 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

Core i5-13400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2019) and a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of SP3. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

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 i5-13400F Benchmark Check

EPYC 7402 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7402
1080p
low	171 FPS	158 FPS
medium	158 FPS	131 FPS
high	132 FPS	110 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	87 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	132 FPS
medium	123 FPS	107 FPS
high	99 FPS	87 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	69 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	64 FPS
medium	74 FPS	55 FPS
high	59 FPS	43 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	34 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 7402

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7402
1080p
low	545 FPS	358 FPS
medium	464 FPS	315 FPS
high	389 FPS	263 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	213 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	303 FPS
medium	403 FPS	276 FPS
high	345 FPS	236 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	188 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	195 FPS
medium	247 FPS	179 FPS
high	231 FPS	153 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	123 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 7402

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7402
1080p
low	530 FPS	645 FPS
medium	449 FPS	526 FPS
high	415 FPS	468 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	410 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	499 FPS
medium	422 FPS	406 FPS
high	382 FPS	355 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	307 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	369 FPS
medium	331 FPS	287 FPS
high	296 FPS	245 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	196 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 7402

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7402
1080p
low	626 FPS	820 FPS
medium	626 FPS	746 FPS
high	626 FPS	646 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	568 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	657 FPS
medium	626 FPS	572 FPS
high	598 FPS	492 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	422 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	448 FPS
medium	492 FPS	402 FPS
high	439 FPS	359 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	312 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 7402

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and EPYC 7402

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.

EPYC 7402

The EPYC 7402 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 7 August 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.35 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 46,012 points. Launch price was $1,783.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the EPYC 7402 offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 7402 has 14 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 3.35 GHz on the EPYC 7402 — a 31.4% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 7402 uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the EPYC 7402's 46,012 — a 59.1% lead for the EPYC 7402. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 16,211 vs 28,546 (55.1% advantage for the EPYC 7402). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 1,299, a 59.8% lead for the Core i5-13400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 12,622 (10.1% advantage for the EPYC 7402). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 32 MB (total) on the EPYC 7402.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7402
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	24 / 48+140%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+37%	3.35 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	2.8 GHz+12%
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	32 MB (total)+60%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)+150%	512 kB (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm	7 nm, 14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Zen 2 (2017−2020)
PassMark	25,029	46,012+84%
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211	28,546+76%
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407+85%	1,299
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408	12,622+11%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7402 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-13400F versus DDR4-3200 on the EPYC 7402 — the Core i5-13400F supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7402 supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 182.1% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 8 (EPYC 7402). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 128 (EPYC 7402) — the EPYC 7402 offers 108 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and SP3,Rome (EPYC 7402).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7402
Socket	LGA1700	SP3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200+25%	DDR4-3200
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	4096 GB+2033%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	128+540%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F) vs AMD-V, SEV, IOMMU (EPYC 7402). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, EPYC 7402 targets Server / Workstation. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; EPYC 7402 rivals Xeon Gold 6242.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7402
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V, SEV, IOMMU
Target Use	Gaming	Server / Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the EPYC 7402 debuted at $1783. On MSRP ($196 vs $1783), the Core i5-13400F is $1587 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 25.8 pts/$ for the EPYC 7402 — making the Core i5-13400F the 132.8% better value option.