Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 9384X

CPU

GPU

Core i5-13400F

10 Cores16 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.6 GHz2023

Core family

·······

Buy on Amazon

EPYC 9384X

32 Cores64 Thrd320 WWMax: 3.9 GHz2023

EPYC family

·······

Buy on Amazon

Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 9384X Performance Spectrum

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.

Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 9384X 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.

Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 9384X: 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

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 50 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: +3.3% 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 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 really, because they are built for different jobs. EPYC 9384X makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-13400F is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 9384X is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.3% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests. It also has a clear cache advantage at 768 MB versus 20 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9384X is the stronger fit. You are getting 188.1% better PassMark, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also has 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 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. EPYC 9384X comes in 2720.9% more expensive on MSRP at $5,529 MSRP versus $196 MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-13400F is also 879.0% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 13.0 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

EPYC 9384X makes more sense long term 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 keep paying off in CPU-limited games and high-refresh builds.

Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 9384X 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 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. Both support up to DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 memory speed. The EPYC 9384X supports up to 6144 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 3100% 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
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	6144 GB+3100%
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

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

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9384X
MSRP	$196-96%	$5529
Performance per Dollar	127.7+882%	13.0
Release Date	2023	2023

Search Core i5-13400F on Amazon

Search EPYC 9384X on Amazon

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.