
Core i5-13400F
Popular choices:

EPYC 9745
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 $11,945 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $12,141 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1086.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 10.8 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $12,141 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 400W, a 335W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9745.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9745 across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 130,698).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9745, which brings 128 cores / 256 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
EPYC 9745
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +9.4% higher average FPS across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 128 cores / 256 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.8 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($12,141 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
- ❌515.4% higher power demand at 400W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.
Core i5-13400F
2023EPYC 9745
2024Why buy it
- ✅Costs $11,945 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $12,141 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1086.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 10.8 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $12,141 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 400W, a 335W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9745.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +9.4% higher average FPS across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 128 cores / 256 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9745 across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 130,698).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9745, which brings 128 cores / 256 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.8 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($12,141 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 9745 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 9745 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 171 FPS | 192 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 156 FPS |
| high | 132 FPS | 126 FPS |
| ultra | 112 FPS | 98 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 143 FPS | 158 FPS |
| medium | 123 FPS | 124 FPS |
| high | 99 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 84 FPS | 77 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 81 FPS | 72 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 60 FPS |
| high | 59 FPS | 47 FPS |
| ultra | 46 FPS | 39 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9745 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 545 FPS | 525 FPS |
| medium | 464 FPS | 450 FPS |
| high | 389 FPS | 358 FPS |
| ultra | 356 FPS | 291 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 458 FPS | 431 FPS |
| medium | 403 FPS | 379 FPS |
| high | 345 FPS | 310 FPS |
| ultra | 301 FPS | 245 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 280 FPS | 267 FPS |
| medium | 247 FPS | 239 FPS |
| high | 231 FPS | 208 FPS |
| ultra | 204 FPS | 172 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9745 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 530 FPS | 743 FPS |
| medium | 449 FPS | 610 FPS |
| high | 415 FPS | 556 FPS |
| ultra | 375 FPS | 481 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 490 FPS | 594 FPS |
| medium | 422 FPS | 494 FPS |
| high | 382 FPS | 450 FPS |
| ultra | 343 FPS | 390 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 393 FPS | 430 FPS |
| medium | 331 FPS | 335 FPS |
| high | 296 FPS | 298 FPS |
| ultra | 246 FPS | 240 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9745 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 974 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 884 FPS |
| high | 626 FPS | 761 FPS |
| ultra | 626 FPS | 658 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 750 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 656 FPS |
| high | 598 FPS | 561 FPS |
| ultra | 521 FPS | 482 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 535 FPS | 538 FPS |
| medium | 492 FPS | 481 FPS |
| high | 439 FPS | 422 FPS |
| ultra | 382 FPS | 365 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and EPYC 9745

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 9745
EPYC 9745
The EPYC 9745 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 128 cores and 256 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 400 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 130,698 points. Launch price was $12,141.
Processing Power
The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the EPYC 9745 offers 128 cores / 256 threads — the EPYC 9745 has 118 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9745 — 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 9745 uses Turin (2024) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the EPYC 9745's 130,698 — a 135.7% lead for the EPYC 9745. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9745.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9745 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 10 / 16 | 128 / 256+1180% |
| Boost Clock | 4.6 GHz+24% | 3.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz+4% | 2.4 GHz |
| 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 | 3 nm-57% |
| Architecture | Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) | Turin (2024) |
| PassMark | 25,029 | 130,698+422% |
| 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 9745 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 9745). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9745) — the EPYC 9745 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 9745).
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9745 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 9745). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, EPYC 9745 targets Data Center / High Density. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; EPYC 9745 rivals Xeon 6980P.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9745 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Gaming | Data Center / High Density |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the EPYC 9745 debuted at $12141. On MSRP ($196 vs $12141), the Core i5-13400F is $11945 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 10.8 pts/$ for the EPYC 9745 — making the Core i5-13400F the 168.9% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | EPYC 9745 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $196-98% | $12141 |
| Performance per Dollar | 127.7+1082% | 10.8 |
| Release Date | 2023 | 2024 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













