
Core i5-13400F
Popular choices:

EPYC 7552
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
- ✅Better for gaming: +6.1% higher average FPS across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $3,829 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $4,025 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 795.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 14.3 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $4,025 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 200W, a 135W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 57,414).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 192 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7552, which brings 48 cores / 96 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
EPYC 7552
2019Why buy it
- ✅+129.4% higher PassMark.
- ✅+860% larger total L3 cache (192 MB vs 20 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 48 cores / 96 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.3 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($4,025 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
- ❌207.7% higher power demand at 200W 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
2023EPYC 7552
2019Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +6.1% higher average FPS across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $3,829 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $4,025 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 795.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 14.3 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $4,025 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 200W, a 135W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.
Why buy it
- ✅+129.4% higher PassMark.
- ✅+860% larger total L3 cache (192 MB vs 20 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 48 cores / 96 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 57,414).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 192 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7552, which brings 48 cores / 96 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.3 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($4,025 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
- ❌207.7% higher power demand at 200W 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 7552?
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 | EPYC 7552 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 171 FPS | 181 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 158 FPS |
| high | 132 FPS | 123 FPS |
| ultra | 112 FPS | 100 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 143 FPS | 152 FPS |
| medium | 123 FPS | 128 FPS |
| high | 99 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 84 FPS | 79 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 81 FPS | 71 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 63 FPS |
| high | 59 FPS | 48 FPS |
| ultra | 46 FPS | 39 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 7552 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 545 FPS | 236 FPS |
| medium | 464 FPS | 211 FPS |
| high | 389 FPS | 175 FPS |
| ultra | 356 FPS | 142 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 458 FPS | 194 FPS |
| medium | 403 FPS | 177 FPS |
| high | 345 FPS | 152 FPS |
| ultra | 301 FPS | 119 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 280 FPS | 120 FPS |
| medium | 247 FPS | 112 FPS |
| high | 231 FPS | 98 FPS |
| ultra | 204 FPS | 81 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 7552 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 530 FPS | 587 FPS |
| medium | 449 FPS | 492 FPS |
| high | 415 FPS | 437 FPS |
| ultra | 375 FPS | 365 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 490 FPS | 492 FPS |
| medium | 422 FPS | 419 FPS |
| high | 382 FPS | 374 FPS |
| ultra | 343 FPS | 318 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 393 FPS | 371 FPS |
| medium | 331 FPS | 298 FPS |
| high | 296 FPS | 265 FPS |
| ultra | 246 FPS | 215 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 7552 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 890 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 809 FPS |
| high | 626 FPS | 694 FPS |
| ultra | 626 FPS | 601 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 705 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 615 FPS |
| high | 598 FPS | 525 FPS |
| ultra | 521 FPS | 446 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 535 FPS | 499 FPS |
| medium | 492 FPS | 448 FPS |
| high | 439 FPS | 394 FPS |
| ultra | 382 FPS | 340 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and EPYC 7552

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.

EPYC 7552
EPYC 7552
The EPYC 7552 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 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.3 GHz. L3 cache: 192 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 57,414 points. Launch price was $4,025.
Processing Power
The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the EPYC 7552 offers 48 cores / 96 threads — the EPYC 7552 has 38 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 3.3 GHz on the EPYC 7552 — a 32.9% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 7552 uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the EPYC 7552's 57,414 — a 78.6% lead for the EPYC 7552. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 192 MB (total) on the EPYC 7552.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 7552 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 10 / 16 | 48 / 96+380% |
| Boost Clock | 4.6 GHz+39% | 3.3 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz+14% | 2.2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 20 MB (total) | 192 MB (total)+860% |
| 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 | 57,414+129% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 16,211 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,407 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 11,408 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7552 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 3200 on the EPYC 7552 — the EPYC 7552 supports 199.4% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7552 supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 182.1% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 8 (EPYC 7552). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 128 (EPYC 7552) — the EPYC 7552 offers 108 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and SP3 (EPYC 7552).
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 7552 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | SP3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+25% | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 | 3200+63900% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 192 GB+4915100% | 4096 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 8+300% |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 20 | 128+540% |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; EPYC 7552 rivals Xeon Platinum 8362.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 7552 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | — | None |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | Gaming | — |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the EPYC 7552 debuted at $4025. On MSRP ($196 vs $4025), the Core i5-13400F is $3829 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 14.3 pts/$ for the EPYC 7552 — making the Core i5-13400F the 159.8% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 7552 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $196-95% | $4025 |
| Performance per Dollar | 127.7+793% | 14.3 |
| Release Date | 2023 | 2019 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













