
Core i5-13400F
Popular choices:

EPYC 9654
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
- ✅+92.6% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
- ✅Costs $11,609 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $11,805 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1164.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 10.1 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $11,805 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 360W, a 295W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9654.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (11,408 vs 20,000).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 384 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9654, which brings 96 cores / 192 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
EPYC 9654
2022Why buy it
- ✅+75.3% higher Geekbench multi-core.
- ✅+1820% larger total L3 cache (384 MB vs 20 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 96 cores / 192 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (1,250 vs 2,407).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.1 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($11,805 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 9654
2022Why buy it
- ✅+92.6% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
- ✅Costs $11,609 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $11,805 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1164.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 10.1 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $11,805 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 360W, a 295W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9654.
Why buy it
- ✅+75.3% higher Geekbench multi-core.
- ✅+1820% larger total L3 cache (384 MB vs 20 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 96 cores / 192 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (11,408 vs 20,000).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 384 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9654, which brings 96 cores / 192 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (1,250 vs 2,407).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.1 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($11,805 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 9654?
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 9654 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 171 FPS | 170 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 141 FPS |
| high | 132 FPS | 122 FPS |
| ultra | 112 FPS | 96 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 143 FPS | 148 FPS |
| medium | 123 FPS | 119 FPS |
| high | 99 FPS | 97 FPS |
| ultra | 84 FPS | 77 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 81 FPS | 70 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 59 FPS |
| high | 59 FPS | 47 FPS |
| ultra | 46 FPS | 39 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9654 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 545 FPS | 524 FPS |
| medium | 464 FPS | 457 FPS |
| high | 389 FPS | 365 FPS |
| ultra | 356 FPS | 296 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 458 FPS | 431 FPS |
| medium | 403 FPS | 385 FPS |
| high | 345 FPS | 317 FPS |
| ultra | 301 FPS | 250 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 280 FPS | 265 FPS |
| medium | 247 FPS | 241 FPS |
| high | 231 FPS | 211 FPS |
| ultra | 204 FPS | 176 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9654 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 530 FPS | 671 FPS |
| medium | 449 FPS | 560 FPS |
| high | 415 FPS | 522 FPS |
| ultra | 375 FPS | 454 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 490 FPS | 511 FPS |
| medium | 422 FPS | 425 FPS |
| high | 382 FPS | 389 FPS |
| ultra | 343 FPS | 337 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 393 FPS | 376 FPS |
| medium | 331 FPS | 293 FPS |
| high | 296 FPS | 262 FPS |
| ultra | 246 FPS | 210 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9654 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 902 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 822 FPS |
| high | 626 FPS | 708 FPS |
| ultra | 626 FPS | 623 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 724 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 631 FPS |
| high | 598 FPS | 540 FPS |
| ultra | 521 FPS | 461 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 535 FPS | 519 FPS |
| medium | 492 FPS | 464 FPS |
| high | 439 FPS | 407 FPS |
| ultra | 382 FPS | 350 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and EPYC 9654

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 9654
EPYC 9654
The EPYC 9654 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 96 cores and 192 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 384 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: 119,246 points. Launch price was $11,805.
Processing Power
The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the EPYC 9654 offers 96 cores / 192 threads — the EPYC 9654 has 86 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9654 — a 21.7% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 9654 uses Genoa (2022−2023) (5 nm, 6 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the EPYC 9654's 119,246 — a 130.6% lead for the EPYC 9654. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 1,250, a 63.3% lead for the Core i5-13400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 20,000 (54.7% advantage for the EPYC 9654). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 384 MB (total) on the EPYC 9654.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9654 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 10 / 16 | 96 / 192+860% |
| Boost Clock | 4.6 GHz+24% | 3.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz+4% | 2.4 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 20 MB (total) | 384 MB (total)+1820% |
| 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 | 119,246+376% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 16,211 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,407+93% | 1,250 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 11,408 | 20,000+75% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 9654 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 9654). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9654) — the EPYC 9654 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 9654).
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9654 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 9654). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, EPYC 9654 targets Data Center. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; EPYC 9654 rivals Xeon 8592+.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9654 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 9654 debuted at $11805. On MSRP ($196 vs $11805), the Core i5-13400F is $11609 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 10.1 pts/$ for the EPYC 9654 — making the Core i5-13400F the 170.7% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9654 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $196-98% | $11805 |
| Performance per Dollar | 127.7+1164% | 10.1 |
| Release Date | 2023 | 2022 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













