Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 9384X

CPU

GPU

Core i5-13400F

10 Cores16 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.6 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9384X

32 Cores64 Thrd320 WWMax: 3.9 GHz2023

Popular choices:

••••i5-13400F•••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-13400F

10 / 16

25,029

0.0%

72,121

+188.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen 9 7900

Ryzen 9 9955HX

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

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 $5,333 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $5,529 MSRP).
✅Delivers 879.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 13.0 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $5,529 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 320W, a 255W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9384X.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9384X across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 72,121).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9384X, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 9384X

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.0% higher average FPS across 49 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 13.0 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($5,529 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 9384X

2023

Why buy it

✅Costs $5,333 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $5,529 MSRP).
✅Delivers 879.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 13.0 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $5,529 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 320W, a 255W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9384X.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.0% higher average FPS across 49 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 9384X across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 72,121).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9384X, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.0 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($5,529 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 9384X better than Core i5-13400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9384X 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 9384X is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 3.0% more average FPS across 49 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 768 MB vs 20 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9384X is the better fit. You are getting 188.1% better PassMark, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 3740% larger total L3 cache (768 MB vs 20 MB).

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

EPYC 9384X is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-13400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9384X is 2720.9% more expensive on MSRP at $5,529 MSRP versus $196 MSRP, and it gives you a 3.0% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-13400F is also 879.0% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 13.0 PassMark/$), 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 9384X is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 3D V-Cache and a much larger 768 MB L3 cache instead of 20 MB, more multi-core headroom with 32 cores / 64 threads instead of 10/16, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That extra cache should hold up really well in CPU-limited games and high-refresh builds.

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 9384X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9384X
1080p
low	171 FPS	171 FPS
medium	158 FPS	141 FPS
high	132 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	95 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	148 FPS
medium	123 FPS	120 FPS
high	99 FPS	95 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	76 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	70 FPS
medium	74 FPS	59 FPS
high	59 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	38 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9384X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9384X
1080p
low	545 FPS	507 FPS
medium	464 FPS	443 FPS
high	389 FPS	355 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	288 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	417 FPS
medium	403 FPS	373 FPS
high	345 FPS	308 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	243 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	257 FPS
medium	247 FPS	234 FPS
high	231 FPS	205 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	171 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9384X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9384X
1080p
low	530 FPS	670 FPS
medium	449 FPS	559 FPS
high	415 FPS	521 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	453 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	510 FPS
medium	422 FPS	424 FPS
high	382 FPS	389 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	336 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	376 FPS
medium	331 FPS	294 FPS
high	296 FPS	262 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	210 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9384X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9384X
1080p
low	626 FPS	904 FPS
medium	626 FPS	822 FPS
high	626 FPS	708 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	625 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	721 FPS
medium	626 FPS	629 FPS
high	598 FPS	538 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	460 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	518 FPS
medium	492 FPS	462 FPS
high	439 FPS	406 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	349 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9384X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and EPYC 9384X

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 9384X

The EPYC 9384X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 13 June 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Genoa-X (2023) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 768 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 320 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 72,121 points. Launch price was $5,529.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the EPYC 9384X offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 9384X has 22 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 3.9 GHz on the EPYC 9384X — a 16.5% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.1 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 9384X uses Genoa-X (2023) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the EPYC 9384X's 72,121 — a 96.9% lead for the EPYC 9384X. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 768 MB (total) on the EPYC 9384X.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9384X
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	32 / 64+220%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+18%	3.9 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	3.1 GHz+24%
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	768 MB (total)+3740%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)+25%	1 MB (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm	5 nm-29%
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Genoa-X (2023)
PassMark	25,029	72,121+188%
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 9384X 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 9384X — the EPYC 9384X supports 199.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9384X 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 9384X). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9384X) — the EPYC 9384X 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 9384X).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9384X
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 9384X 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, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9384X). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; EPYC 9384X rivals Xeon Platinum 8468.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9384X
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the EPYC 9384X debuted at $5529. On MSRP ($196 vs $5529), the Core i5-13400F is $5333 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 13.0 pts/$ for the EPYC 9384X — making the Core i5-13400F the 162.9% better value option.