
Core i5-13400F
Popular choices:

FX-8320E
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
- ✅Better for gaming: +135.4% higher average FPS across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Delivers 278.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 33.7 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $147 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 95W, a 30W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of AM3+ and older memory support.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌33.3% HIGHER MSRP$196 MSRPvs$147 MSRP
FX-8320E
2014Why buy it
- ✅Costs $49 less on MSRP ($147 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (1,734 vs 11,408).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 33.7 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($147 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
- ❌46.2% higher power demand at 95W vs 65W.
- ❌Older platform position on AM3+, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
Core i5-13400F
2023FX-8320E
2014Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +135.4% higher average FPS across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Delivers 278.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 33.7 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $147 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 95W, a 30W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of AM3+ and older memory support.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Why buy it
- ✅Costs $49 less on MSRP ($147 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌33.3% HIGHER MSRP$196 MSRPvs$147 MSRP
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (1,734 vs 11,408).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 33.7 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($147 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
- ❌46.2% higher power demand at 95W vs 65W.
- ❌Older platform position on AM3+, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i5-13400F better than FX-8320E?
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 | FX-8320E |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 171 FPS | 124 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 124 FPS |
| high | 132 FPS | 116 FPS |
| ultra | 112 FPS | 95 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 143 FPS | 124 FPS |
| medium | 123 FPS | 117 FPS |
| high | 99 FPS | 93 FPS |
| ultra | 84 FPS | 76 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 81 FPS | 63 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 57 FPS |
| high | 59 FPS | 45 FPS |
| ultra | 46 FPS | 35 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | FX-8320E |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 545 FPS | 124 FPS |
| medium | 464 FPS | 124 FPS |
| high | 389 FPS | 124 FPS |
| ultra | 356 FPS | 124 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 458 FPS | 124 FPS |
| medium | 403 FPS | 124 FPS |
| high | 345 FPS | 124 FPS |
| ultra | 301 FPS | 124 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 280 FPS | 124 FPS |
| medium | 247 FPS | 124 FPS |
| high | 231 FPS | 124 FPS |
| ultra | 204 FPS | 120 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | FX-8320E |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 530 FPS | 124 FPS |
| medium | 449 FPS | 124 FPS |
| high | 415 FPS | 124 FPS |
| ultra | 375 FPS | 124 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 490 FPS | 124 FPS |
| medium | 422 FPS | 124 FPS |
| high | 382 FPS | 124 FPS |
| ultra | 343 FPS | 124 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 393 FPS | 124 FPS |
| medium | 331 FPS | 124 FPS |
| high | 296 FPS | 124 FPS |
| ultra | 246 FPS | 124 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | FX-8320E |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 124 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 124 FPS |
| high | 626 FPS | 124 FPS |
| ultra | 626 FPS | 124 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 124 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 124 FPS |
| high | 598 FPS | 124 FPS |
| ultra | 521 FPS | 124 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 535 FPS | 124 FPS |
| medium | 492 FPS | 124 FPS |
| high | 439 FPS | 124 FPS |
| ultra | 382 FPS | 124 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and FX-8320E

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.

FX-8320E
FX-8320E
The FX-8320E is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2 September 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L2 cache: 8192 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 4,960 points. Launch price was $147.
Processing Power
The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the FX-8320E offers 8 cores / 8 threads — the Core i5-13400F has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 4 GHz on the FX-8320E — a 14% 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 FX-8320E uses Vishera (2012−2015) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the FX-8320E's 4,960 — a 133.8% lead for the Core i5-13400F. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 439, a 138.3% lead for the Core i5-13400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 1,734 (147.2% advantage for the Core i5-13400F).
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | FX-8320E |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 10 / 16+25% | 8 / 8 |
| Boost Clock | 4.6 GHz+15% | 4 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz | 3.2 GHz+28% |
| L3 Cache | 20 MB (total) | — |
| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 8192 kB+540% |
| Process | Intel 7 nm-78% | 32 nm |
| Architecture | Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) | Vishera (2012−2015) |
| PassMark | 25,029+405% | 4,960 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 16,211 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,407+448% | 439 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 11,408+558% | 1,734 |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the FX-8320E uses AM3+ (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-13400F versus DDR3-1866 on the FX-8320E — the Core i5-13400F supports 50% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i5-13400F supports up to 192 GB of RAM compared to 32 GB — 142.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 0 (FX-8320E) — the Core i5-13400F offers 20 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and AMD 990FX,AMD 970 (FX-8320E).
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | FX-8320E |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | AM3+ |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+150% | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200+67% | DDR3-1866 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 192 GB+500% | 32 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | No |
| PCIe Lanes | 20 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Only the FX-8320E has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F) vs AMD-V (FX-8320E). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | FX-8320E |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | Yes |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | AMD-V |
| Target Use | Gaming | — |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the FX-8320E debuted at $147. On MSRP ($196 vs $147), the FX-8320E is $49 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 33.7 pts/$ for the FX-8320E — making the Core i5-13400F the 116.4% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | FX-8320E |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $196 | $147-25% |
| Performance per Dollar | 127.7+279% | 33.7 |
| Release Date | 2023 | 2014 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













