Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 9135

CPU

GPU

Core i5-13400F

10 Cores16 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.6 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9135

16 Cores32 Thrd200 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2024

Popular choices:

••••i5-13400F•••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-13400F

10 / 16

25,029

0.0%

57,808

+131.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

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

✅Costs $1,018 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $1,214 MSRP).
✅Delivers 168.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 47.6 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $1,214 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 200W, a 135W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9135.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9135 across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 57,808).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9135, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 9135

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.4% higher average FPS across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+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 47.6 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($1,214 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌207.7% higher power demand at 200W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

EPYC 9135

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,018 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $1,214 MSRP).
✅Delivers 168.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 47.6 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $1,214 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 200W, a 135W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9135.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.4% higher average FPS across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+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

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9135 across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 57,808).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9135, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 47.6 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($1,214 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌207.7% higher power demand at 200W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9135 better than Core i5-13400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9135 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 gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 9135 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 12.4% more average FPS across 8 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9135 is the better fit. You are getting 131% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 220% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 20 MB).

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

EPYC 9135 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-13400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9135 is 519.4% more expensive on MSRP at $1,214 MSRP versus $196 MSRP, and it gives you a 12.4% average FPS lead across 8 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-13400F is also 168.2% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 47.6 PassMark/$), 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 9135 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2023), 220% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 20 MB), more multi-core headroom with 16 cores / 32 threads instead of 10/16, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. 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 9135 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9135
1080p
low	171 FPS	172 FPS
medium	158 FPS	139 FPS
high	132 FPS	119 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	96 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	152 FPS
medium	123 FPS	120 FPS
high	99 FPS	99 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	81 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	81 FPS
medium	74 FPS	69 FPS
high	59 FPS	55 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	45 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9135

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9135
1080p
low	545 FPS	496 FPS
medium	464 FPS	439 FPS
high	389 FPS	341 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	293 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	427 FPS
medium	403 FPS	382 FPS
high	345 FPS	309 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	248 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	267 FPS
medium	247 FPS	242 FPS
high	231 FPS	211 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	183 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9135

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9135
1080p
low	530 FPS	729 FPS
medium	449 FPS	607 FPS
high	415 FPS	552 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	489 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	559 FPS
medium	422 FPS	463 FPS
high	382 FPS	415 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	362 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	407 FPS
medium	331 FPS	325 FPS
high	296 FPS	287 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	232 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9135

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9135
1080p
low	626 FPS	929 FPS
medium	626 FPS	846 FPS
high	626 FPS	732 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	660 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	735 FPS
medium	626 FPS	652 FPS
high	598 FPS	561 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	493 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	524 FPS
medium	492 FPS	475 FPS
high	439 FPS	417 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	365 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9135

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and EPYC 9135

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 9135

The EPYC 9135 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 3.65 GHz, with boost up to 4.3 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 57,808 points. Launch price was $1,214.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the EPYC 9135 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the EPYC 9135 has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 4.3 GHz on the EPYC 9135 — a 6.7% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.65 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 9135 uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the EPYC 9135's 57,808 — a 79.1% lead for the EPYC 9135. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 9135.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9135
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	16 / 32+60%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+7%	4.3 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	3.65 GHz+46%
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	57,808+131%
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 9135 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 6000 on the EPYC 9135 — the EPYC 9135 supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9135 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 9135). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9135) — the EPYC 9135 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 9135).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9135
Socket	LGA1700	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	6000+119900%
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 9135 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. 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 9135 rivals Xeon Platinum 8558P.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9135
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
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 9135 debuted at $1214. On MSRP ($196 vs $1214), the Core i5-13400F is $1018 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 47.6 pts/$ for the EPYC 9135 — making the Core i5-13400F the 91.4% better value option.