Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 9175F

CPU

GPU

Core i5-13400F

10 Cores16 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.6 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9175F

16 Cores32 Thrd320 WWMax: 5 GHz2024

Popular choices:

••••i5-13400F•••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-13400F

10 / 16

25,029

0.0%

65,894

+163.3%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

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 $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 49 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

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +36.4% higher average FPS across 49 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.

Core i5-13400F

2023

EPYC 9175F

2024

Why 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.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +36.4% higher average FPS across 49 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

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9175F across 49 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.

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?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9175F 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 9175F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 36.4% more average FPS across 49 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 512 MB vs 20 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9175F is the better fit. You are getting 163.3% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 2460% larger total L3 cache (512 MB vs 20 MB).

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

EPYC 9175F is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-13400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9175F is 2071.4% more expensive on MSRP at $4,256 MSRP versus $196 MSRP, and it gives you a 36.4% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-13400F is also 724.8% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 15.5 PassMark/$), 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 9175F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2023), 3D V-Cache and a much larger 512 MB L3 cache instead of 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 9175F Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9175F
1080p
low	171 FPS	300 FPS
medium	158 FPS	273 FPS
high	132 FPS	226 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	191 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	275 FPS
medium	123 FPS	227 FPS
high	99 FPS	176 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	156 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	189 FPS
medium	74 FPS	156 FPS
high	59 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	106 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9175F

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9175F
1080p
low	545 FPS	811 FPS
medium	464 FPS	688 FPS
high	389 FPS	539 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	466 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	665 FPS
medium	403 FPS	587 FPS
high	345 FPS	474 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	383 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	372 FPS
medium	247 FPS	333 FPS
high	231 FPS	306 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	267 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9175F

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9175F
1080p
low	530 FPS	922 FPS
medium	449 FPS	746 FPS
high	415 FPS	674 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	573 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	723 FPS
medium	422 FPS	582 FPS
high	382 FPS	514 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	434 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	510 FPS
medium	331 FPS	420 FPS
high	296 FPS	373 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	309 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9175F

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9175F
1080p
low	626 FPS	1140 FPS
medium	626 FPS	1015 FPS
high	626 FPS	901 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	813 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	890 FPS
medium	626 FPS	782 FPS
high	598 FPS	686 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	596 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	650 FPS
medium	492 FPS	578 FPS
high	439 FPS	513 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9175F

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and EPYC 9175F

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 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9175F supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 182.1% 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+127900%
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+4915100%	4096
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

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the EPYC 9175F debuted at $4256. On MSRP ($196 vs $4256), the Core i5-13400F is $4060 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 15.5 pts/$ for the EPYC 9175F — making the Core i5-13400F the 156.7% better value option.