
Core i5-13400F
Popular choices:

EPYC 9115
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
- ✅Costs $530 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $726 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 91.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 66.6 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $726 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9115.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 48,343).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 64 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9115, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
EPYC 9115
2024Why buy it
- ✅+93.1% higher PassMark.
- ✅+220% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 20 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 66.6 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($726 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
- ❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.
Core i5-13400F
2023EPYC 9115
2024Why buy it
- ✅Costs $530 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $726 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 91.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 66.6 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $726 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9115.
Why buy it
- ✅+93.1% higher PassMark.
- ✅+220% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 20 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 48,343).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 64 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9115, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 66.6 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($726 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
- ❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9115 better than Core i5-13400F?
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 9115 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 171 FPS | 164 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 135 FPS |
| high | 132 FPS | 114 FPS |
| ultra | 112 FPS | 90 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 143 FPS | 144 FPS |
| medium | 123 FPS | 116 FPS |
| high | 99 FPS | 93 FPS |
| ultra | 84 FPS | 74 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 81 FPS | 68 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 58 FPS |
| high | 59 FPS | 46 FPS |
| ultra | 46 FPS | 37 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9115 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 545 FPS | 490 FPS |
| medium | 464 FPS | 436 FPS |
| high | 389 FPS | 338 FPS |
| ultra | 356 FPS | 291 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 458 FPS | 422 FPS |
| medium | 403 FPS | 380 FPS |
| high | 345 FPS | 305 FPS |
| ultra | 301 FPS | 247 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 280 FPS | 264 FPS |
| medium | 247 FPS | 240 FPS |
| high | 231 FPS | 208 FPS |
| ultra | 204 FPS | 182 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9115 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 530 FPS | 707 FPS |
| medium | 449 FPS | 592 FPS |
| high | 415 FPS | 538 FPS |
| ultra | 375 FPS | 478 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 490 FPS | 545 FPS |
| medium | 422 FPS | 454 FPS |
| high | 382 FPS | 407 FPS |
| ultra | 343 FPS | 355 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 393 FPS | 397 FPS |
| medium | 331 FPS | 318 FPS |
| high | 296 FPS | 281 FPS |
| ultra | 246 FPS | 228 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9115 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 860 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 785 FPS |
| high | 626 FPS | 679 FPS |
| ultra | 626 FPS | 601 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 680 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 601 FPS |
| high | 598 FPS | 516 FPS |
| ultra | 521 FPS | 447 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 535 FPS | 495 FPS |
| medium | 492 FPS | 445 FPS |
| high | 439 FPS | 391 FPS |
| ultra | 382 FPS | 335 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and EPYC 9115

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 9115
EPYC 9115
The EPYC 9115 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.1 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 48,343 points. Launch price was $726.
Processing Power
The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the EPYC 9115 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the EPYC 9115 has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 4.1 GHz on the EPYC 9115 — a 11.5% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 9115 uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the EPYC 9115's 48,343 — a 63.6% lead for the EPYC 9115. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 9115.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9115 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 10 / 16 | 16 / 32+60% |
| Boost Clock | 4.6 GHz+12% | 4.1 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz | 2.6 GHz+4% |
| L3 Cache | 20 MB (total) | 64 MB (total)+220% |
| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core)+25% | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | Intel 7 nm | 4 nm-43% |
| Architecture | Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) | Turin (2024) |
| PassMark | 25,029 | 48,343+93% |
| 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 9115 uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-13400F versus 4800 on the EPYC 9115 — the EPYC 9115 supports 199.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9115 supports up to 6144 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 12 (EPYC 9115). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9115) — the EPYC 9115 offers 108 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and SP5 (EPYC 9115).
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9115 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 | 4800+95900% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 192 GB+3276700% | 6144 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 12+500% |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 20 | 128+540% |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the EPYC 9115 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, AMD-V (EPYC 9115). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; EPYC 9115 rivals Xeon Platinum 8468X.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9115 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | — | None |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V |
| Target Use | Gaming | — |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the EPYC 9115 debuted at $726. On MSRP ($196 vs $726), the Core i5-13400F is $530 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 66.6 pts/$ for the EPYC 9115 — making the Core i5-13400F the 62.9% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9115 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $196-73% | $726 |
| Performance per Dollar | 127.7+92% | 66.6 |
| Release Date | 2023 | 2024 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













