
Core i5-13400F
Popular choices:

EPYC 9555
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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
2023Why buy it
- ✅Costs $9,630 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $9,826 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 841.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 13.6 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $9,826 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 360W, a 295W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9555.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9555 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 133,253).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9555, which brings 64 cores / 128 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
EPYC 9555
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +16.9% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 64 cores / 128 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.6 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($9,826 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
- ❌453.8% higher power demand at 360W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.
Core i5-13400F
2023EPYC 9555
2024Why buy it
- ✅Costs $9,630 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $9,826 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 841.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 13.6 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $9,826 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 360W, a 295W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9555.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +16.9% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 64 cores / 128 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9555 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 133,253).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9555, which brings 64 cores / 128 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.6 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($9,826 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 EPYC 9555 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?
Games Benchmarks
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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9555 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 171 FPS | 171 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 142 FPS |
| high | 132 FPS | 122 FPS |
| ultra | 112 FPS | 99 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 143 FPS | 150 FPS |
| medium | 123 FPS | 121 FPS |
| high | 99 FPS | 99 FPS |
| ultra | 84 FPS | 83 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 81 FPS | 84 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 73 FPS |
| high | 59 FPS | 57 FPS |
| ultra | 46 FPS | 47 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9555 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 545 FPS | 655 FPS |
| medium | 464 FPS | 566 FPS |
| high | 389 FPS | 459 FPS |
| ultra | 356 FPS | 397 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 458 FPS | 546 FPS |
| medium | 403 FPS | 483 FPS |
| high | 345 FPS | 404 FPS |
| ultra | 301 FPS | 328 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 280 FPS | 331 FPS |
| medium | 247 FPS | 295 FPS |
| high | 231 FPS | 268 FPS |
| ultra | 204 FPS | 236 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9555 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 530 FPS | 747 FPS |
| medium | 449 FPS | 634 FPS |
| high | 415 FPS | 590 FPS |
| ultra | 375 FPS | 519 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 490 FPS | 561 FPS |
| medium | 422 FPS | 474 FPS |
| high | 382 FPS | 434 FPS |
| ultra | 343 FPS | 376 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 393 FPS | 405 FPS |
| medium | 331 FPS | 326 FPS |
| high | 296 FPS | 288 FPS |
| ultra | 246 FPS | 229 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9555 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 1005 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 902 FPS |
| high | 626 FPS | 778 FPS |
| ultra | 626 FPS | 702 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 809 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 704 FPS |
| high | 598 FPS | 603 FPS |
| ultra | 521 FPS | 533 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 535 FPS | 574 FPS |
| medium | 492 FPS | 510 FPS |
| high | 439 FPS | 447 FPS |
| ultra | 382 FPS | 392 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and EPYC 9555

Core i5-13400F
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 9555
EPYC 9555
The EPYC 9555 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 360 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 133,253 points. Launch price was $9,826.
Processing Power
The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the EPYC 9555 offers 64 cores / 128 threads — the EPYC 9555 has 54 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 4.4 GHz on the EPYC 9555 — a 4.4% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 9555 uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the EPYC 9555's 133,253 — a 136.7% lead for the EPYC 9555. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9555.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9555 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 10 / 16 | 64 / 128+540% |
| Boost Clock | 4.6 GHz+5% | 4.4 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz | 3.2 GHz+28% |
| 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 | 133,253+432% |
| 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 9555 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 9555). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9555) — the EPYC 9555 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 9555).
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9555 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 9555). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, EPYC 9555 targets Data Center. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; EPYC 9555 rivals Xeon 6972P.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9555 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Gaming | Data Center |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the EPYC 9555 debuted at $9826. On MSRP ($196 vs $9826), the Core i5-13400F is $9630 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 13.6 pts/$ for the EPYC 9555 — making the Core i5-13400F the 161.6% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9555 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $196-98% | $9826 |
| Performance per Dollar | 127.7+839% | 13.6 |
| Release Date | 2023 | 2024 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













