Core i5-13400F
EPYC 9175F
Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 9175F Performance Spectrum
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.
Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 9175F FPS Benchmarks
Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.
Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Among Us
Apex Legends
ARC Raiders
Baldur's Gate 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 9175F: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
Core i5-13400F
2023Why buy it
- ✅Costs $4,060 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $4,256 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 724.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 15.5 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $4,256 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 320W, a 255W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9175F.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9175F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 65,894).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9175F, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
EPYC 9175F
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +36.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.5 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($4,256 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
- ❌392.3% higher power demand at 320W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9175F better than Core i5-13400F?
Which one is better for gaming?
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?
Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 9175F Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.
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 9175F
The EPYC 9175F 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 4.2 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 512 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 320 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 65,894 points. Launch price was $4,256.
Processing Power
The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the EPYC 9175F offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the EPYC 9175F has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 5 GHz on the EPYC 9175F — a 8.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 9175F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 4.2 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 9175F uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the EPYC 9175F's 65,894 — a 89.9% lead for the EPYC 9175F. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 512 MB (total) on the EPYC 9175F.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9175F |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 10 / 16 | 16 / 32+60% |
| Boost Clock | 4.6 GHz | 5 GHz+9% |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz | 4.2 GHz+68% |
| L3 Cache | 20 MB (total) | 512 MB (total)+2460% |
| 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 | 65,894+163% |
| 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 9175F 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 6400 on the EPYC 9175F — the EPYC 9175F supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9175F supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 2033.3% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 12 (EPYC 9175F). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9175F) — the EPYC 9175F 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 9175F).
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9175F |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 | 6400+33% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 192 GB | 4096 GB+2033% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 12+500% |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 20 | 128+540% |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the EPYC 9175F 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 9175F rivals Xeon 6972P.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9175F |
|---|---|---|
| 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
At launch, the Core i5-13400F was priced at $196, while the EPYC 9175F came in at $4256. On launch pricing ($196 vs $4256), Core i5-13400F was $4060 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 15.5 pts/$ for the EPYC 9175F — making the Core i5-13400F the 156.7% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9175F |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $196-95% | $4256 |
| Performance per Dollar | 127.7+724% | 15.5 |
| Release Date | 2023 | 2024 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Core i5-13400F and EPYC 9175F
