Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 9554P

CPU

GPU

Core i5-13400F

10 Cores16 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.6 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9554P

64 Cores128 Thrd360 WWMax: 3.75 GHz2022

Popular choices:

••••i5-13400F•••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-13400F

10 / 16

25,029

0.0%

104,920

+319.2%

Ryzen 9 7945HX3D

Ryzen 9 9950X3D

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

Ryzen Threadripper 9980X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX

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 $6,908 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $7,104 MSRP).
✅Delivers 764.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 14.8 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $7,104 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 360W, a 295W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9554P.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 104,920).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9554P, which brings 64 cores / 128 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 9554P

2022

Why buy it

✅+319.2% higher PassMark.
✅+1180% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 64 cores / 128 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 14.8 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($7,104 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌453.8% higher power demand at 360W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

EPYC 9554P

2022

Why buy it

✅Costs $6,908 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $7,104 MSRP).
✅Delivers 764.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 14.8 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $7,104 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 360W, a 295W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9554P.

Why buy it

✅+319.2% higher PassMark.
✅+1180% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 64 cores / 128 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 104,920).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9554P, which brings 64 cores / 128 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.8 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($7,104 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌453.8% higher power demand at 360W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-13400F better than EPYC 9554P?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9554P 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 streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9554P is the better fit. You are getting 319.2% better PassMark, backed by 64 cores and 128 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?

Core i5-13400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-13400F is $6,908 cheaper on MSRP at $196 MSRP versus $7,104 MSRP, and it gives you a 2.0% average FPS lead across 3 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that EPYC 9554P is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 319.2% better PassMark. It is also 764.6% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 14.8 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

Core i5-13400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2022). That makes it the safer long-term pick.

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 9554P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9554P
1080p
low	171 FPS	171 FPS
medium	158 FPS	142 FPS
high	132 FPS	122 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	96 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	149 FPS
medium	123 FPS	120 FPS
high	99 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	70 FPS
medium	74 FPS	60 FPS
high	59 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	39 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9554P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9554P
1080p
low	545 FPS	533 FPS
medium	464 FPS	465 FPS
high	389 FPS	373 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	303 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	438 FPS
medium	403 FPS	392 FPS
high	345 FPS	323 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	255 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	270 FPS
medium	247 FPS	246 FPS
high	231 FPS	216 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	179 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9554P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9554P
1080p
low	530 FPS	673 FPS
medium	449 FPS	562 FPS
high	415 FPS	523 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	455 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	511 FPS
medium	422 FPS	426 FPS
high	382 FPS	390 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	337 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	377 FPS
medium	331 FPS	295 FPS
high	296 FPS	263 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	211 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9554P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9554P
1080p
low	626 FPS	905 FPS
medium	626 FPS	823 FPS
high	626 FPS	709 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	626 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	726 FPS
medium	626 FPS	633 FPS
high	598 FPS	541 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	463 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	521 FPS
medium	492 FPS	465 FPS
high	439 FPS	408 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	351 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9554P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and EPYC 9554P

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 9554P

The EPYC 9554P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 November 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture. It features 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.75 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm, 6 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 360 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 104,920 points. Launch price was $7,104.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the EPYC 9554P offers 64 cores / 128 threads — the EPYC 9554P has 54 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 3.75 GHz on the EPYC 9554P — a 20.4% 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 9554P uses Genoa (2022−2023) (5 nm, 6 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the EPYC 9554P's 104,920 — a 123% lead for the EPYC 9554P. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9554P.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9554P
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	64 / 128+540%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+23%	3.75 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	3.1 GHz+24%
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	5 nm, 6 nm-29%
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Genoa (2022−2023)
PassMark	25,029	104,920+319%
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 9554P 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 9554P). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9554P) — the EPYC 9554P 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 9554P).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9554P
Socket	LGA1700	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	DDR5-4800
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 9554P). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, EPYC 9554P targets Data Center / Single Socket. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; EPYC 9554P rivals Xeon 8468.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9554P
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V, SEV-SNP
Target Use	Gaming	Data Center / Single Socket

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the EPYC 9554P debuted at $7104. On MSRP ($196 vs $7104), the Core i5-13400F is $6908 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 14.8 pts/$ for the EPYC 9554P — making the Core i5-13400F the 158.5% better value option.