Core i5-13400F
EPYC 9475F
Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 9475F 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 9475F 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 9475F: 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 $7,396 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 691.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 400W, a 335W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9475F.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9475F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (11,408 vs 45,000).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9475F, which brings 48 cores / 96 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
EPYC 9475F
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +28.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 48 cores / 96 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.1 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
- ❌515.4% higher power demand at 400W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9475F 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 9475F 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 9475F
The EPYC 9475F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 3.65 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): 400 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 122,476 points. Launch price was $7,592.
Processing Power
The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the EPYC 9475F offers 48 cores / 96 threads — the EPYC 9475F has 38 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9475F — a 4.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 9475F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.65 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 9475F uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the EPYC 9475F's 122,476 — a 132.1% lead for the EPYC 9475F. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 1,960, a 20.5% lead for the Core i5-13400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 45,000 (119.1% advantage for the EPYC 9475F). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9475F.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9475F |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 10 / 16 | 48 / 96+380% |
| Boost Clock | 4.6 GHz | 4.8 GHz+4% |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz | 3.65 GHz+46% |
| 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 | 122,476+389% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 16,211 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,407+23% | 1,960 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 11,408 | 45,000+294% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 9475F 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 DDR5-6000 on the EPYC 9475F — the EPYC 9475F supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9475F 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 9475F). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9475F) — the EPYC 9475F 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 9475F).
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9475F |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 | DDR5-6000+25% |
| 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 9475F supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F) vs AMD-V (EPYC 9475F). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, EPYC 9475F targets Server. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; EPYC 9475F rivals Xeon 6952P.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9475F |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | — | None |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | AMD-V |
| Target Use | Gaming | Server |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Core i5-13400F was priced at $196, while the EPYC 9475F came in at $7592. On launch pricing ($196 vs $7592), Core i5-13400F was $7396 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 16.1 pts/$ for the EPYC 9475F — making the Core i5-13400F the 155.1% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9475F |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $196-97% | $7592 |
| Performance per Dollar | 127.7+693% | 16.1 |
| 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 9475F
