Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 9375F

CPU

GPU

Core i5-13400F

10 Cores16 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.6 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9375F

32 Cores64 Thrd320 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

••••i5-13400F•••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-13400F

10 / 16

25,029

0.0%

95,768

+282.6%

Ryzen 9 7940HX

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Ryzen 9 9950X3D

Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

Ryzen Threadripper 9980X

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 $5,110 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $5,306 MSRP).
✅Delivers 607.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 18.0 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $5,306 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 320W, a 255W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9375F.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9375F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (11,408 vs 26,020).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9375F, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 9375F

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +29.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 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 18.0 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($5,306 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 9375F

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $5,110 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $5,306 MSRP).
✅Delivers 607.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 18.0 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $5,306 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 320W, a 255W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9375F.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +29.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 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 9375F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (11,408 vs 26,020).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9375F, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 18.0 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($5,306 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 9375F better than Core i5-13400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9375F 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 9375F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 29.5% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 256 MB vs 20 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9375F is the better fit. You are getting 128.1% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 1180% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 20 MB).

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

EPYC 9375F is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-13400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9375F is 2607.1% more expensive on MSRP at $5,306 MSRP versus $196 MSRP, and it gives you a 29.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-13400F is also 607.5% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 18.0 PassMark/$), 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 9375F 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 256 MB L3 cache instead of 20 MB, and more multi-core headroom with 32 cores / 64 threads instead of 10/16. 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 9375F Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9375F
1080p
low	171 FPS	315 FPS
medium	158 FPS	290 FPS
high	132 FPS	240 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	204 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	278 FPS
medium	123 FPS	230 FPS
high	99 FPS	178 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	158 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	191 FPS
medium	74 FPS	157 FPS
high	59 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	107 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9375F

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9375F
1080p
low	545 FPS	725 FPS
medium	464 FPS	618 FPS
high	389 FPS	485 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	421 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	579 FPS
medium	403 FPS	510 FPS
high	345 FPS	419 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	341 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	338 FPS
medium	247 FPS	300 FPS
high	231 FPS	270 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	239 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9375F

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9375F
1080p
low	530 FPS	923 FPS
medium	449 FPS	748 FPS
high	415 FPS	675 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	572 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	724 FPS
medium	422 FPS	584 FPS
high	382 FPS	515 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	433 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	511 FPS
medium	331 FPS	421 FPS
high	296 FPS	374 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	309 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9375F

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9375F
1080p
low	626 FPS	1141 FPS
medium	626 FPS	1015 FPS
high	626 FPS	902 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	813 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	890 FPS
medium	626 FPS	784 FPS
high	598 FPS	688 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	600 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	650 FPS
medium	492 FPS	579 FPS
high	439 FPS	515 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9375F

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and EPYC 9375F

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 9375F

The EPYC 9375F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 3.85 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 256 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: 95,768 points. Launch price was $5,306.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the EPYC 9375F offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 9375F has 22 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9375F — a 4.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 9375F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.85 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 9375F uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the EPYC 9375F's 95,768 — a 117.1% lead for the EPYC 9375F. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 2,981, a 21.3% lead for the EPYC 9375F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 26,020 (78.1% advantage for the EPYC 9375F). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9375F.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9375F
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	32 / 64+220%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz	4.8 GHz+4%
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	3.85 GHz+54%
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	256 MB (total)+1180%
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	95,768+283%
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211	—
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407	2,981+24%
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408	26,020+128%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 9375F uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 memory speed. The Core i5-13400F supports up to 192 GB of RAM compared to 6 TB — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 12 (EPYC 9375F). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9375F) — the EPYC 9375F 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 9375F).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9375F
Socket	LGA1700	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	DDR5-6000
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	6 TB+3100%
RAM Channels	2	12+500%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	128+540%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F) vs AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9375F). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, EPYC 9375F targets Data Center / Frequency Optimized. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; EPYC 9375F rivals Xeon 6766E.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9375F
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V, SEV-SNP
Target Use	Gaming	Data Center / Frequency Optimized

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the EPYC 9375F debuted at $5306. On MSRP ($196 vs $5306), the Core i5-13400F is $5110 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 18.0 pts/$ for the EPYC 9375F — making the Core i5-13400F the 150.5% better value option.