Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 9654P

CPU

GPU

Core i5-13400F

10 Cores16 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.6 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9654P

96 Cores192 Thrd360 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2022

Popular choices:

••••i5-13400F•••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-13400F

10 / 16

25,029

0.0%

116,324

+364.8%

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

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 $10,429 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $10,625 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1066.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 10.9 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $10,625 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 360W, a 295W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9654P.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9654P across 9 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (11,408 vs 23,214).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9654P, which brings 96 cores / 192 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 9654P

2022

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.2% higher average FPS across 9 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅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 PassMark per dollar, at 10.9 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($10,625 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 9654P

2022

Why buy it

✅Costs $10,429 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $10,625 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1066.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 10.9 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $10,625 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 360W, a 295W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9654P.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.2% higher average FPS across 9 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅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

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9654P across 9 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (11,408 vs 23,214).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9654P, which brings 96 cores / 192 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.9 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($10,625 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 9654P better than Core i5-13400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9654P 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 gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 9654P is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 7.2% more average FPS across 9 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 384 MB vs 20 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9654P is the better fit. You are getting 103.5% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 96 cores and 192 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 1820% larger total L3 cache (384 MB vs 20 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

EPYC 9654P is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-13400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9654P is 5320.9% more expensive on MSRP at $10,625 MSRP versus $196 MSRP, and it gives you a 7.2% average FPS lead across 9 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-13400F is also 1066.4% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 10.9 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

EPYC 9654P is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 3D V-Cache and a much larger 384 MB L3 cache instead of 20 MB and more multi-core headroom with 96 cores / 192 threads instead of 10/16. That extra cache should hold up really well in CPU-limited games and high-refresh builds.

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 9654P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9654P
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

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9654P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9654P
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

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9654P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9654P
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

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9654P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9654P
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

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9654P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and EPYC 9654P

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 9654P

The EPYC 9654P 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: 116,324 points. Launch price was $10,625.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the EPYC 9654P offers 96 cores / 192 threads — the EPYC 9654P has 86 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9654P — 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 9654P uses Genoa (2022−2023) (5 nm, 6 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the EPYC 9654P's 116,324 — a 129.2% lead for the EPYC 9654P. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 2,025, a 17.2% lead for the Core i5-13400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 23,214 (68.2% advantage for the EPYC 9654P). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 384 MB (total) on the EPYC 9654P.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9654P
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	116,324+365%
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211	—
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407+19%	2,025
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408	23,214+103%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 9654P 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 9654P). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9654P) — the EPYC 9654P 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 9654P).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9654P
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 9654P). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, EPYC 9654P targets Data Center / Single Socket. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; EPYC 9654P rivals Xeon 8490H.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9654P
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 9654P debuted at $10625. On MSRP ($196 vs $10625), the Core i5-13400F is $10429 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 10.9 pts/$ for the EPYC 9654P — making the Core i5-13400F the 168.4% better value option.