
Core i5-13400F
Popular choices:

Ryzen 7 8700F
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
- ✅+25% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 16 MB).
- ✅Costs $74 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $270 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 10.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 115.7 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $270 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 8700F across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,211 vs 18,040).
Ryzen 7 8700F
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +42.9% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 20 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 115.7 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($270 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
Core i5-13400F
2023Ryzen 7 8700F
2024Why buy it
- ✅+25% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 16 MB).
- ✅Costs $74 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $270 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 10.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 115.7 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $270 MSRP).
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +42.9% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 8700F across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,211 vs 18,040).
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 20 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 115.7 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($270 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is Ryzen 7 8700F 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 | Ryzen 7 8700F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 171 FPS | 266 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 240 FPS |
| high | 132 FPS | 206 FPS |
| ultra | 112 FPS | 176 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 143 FPS | 233 FPS |
| medium | 123 FPS | 190 FPS |
| high | 99 FPS | 158 FPS |
| ultra | 84 FPS | 138 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 81 FPS | 158 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 131 FPS |
| high | 59 FPS | 102 FPS |
| ultra | 46 FPS | 88 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Ryzen 7 8700F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 545 FPS | 483 FPS |
| medium | 464 FPS | 403 FPS |
| high | 389 FPS | 347 FPS |
| ultra | 356 FPS | 308 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 458 FPS | 423 FPS |
| medium | 403 FPS | 374 FPS |
| high | 345 FPS | 322 FPS |
| ultra | 301 FPS | 273 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 280 FPS | 283 FPS |
| medium | 247 FPS | 259 FPS |
| high | 231 FPS | 244 FPS |
| ultra | 204 FPS | 209 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Ryzen 7 8700F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 530 FPS | 781 FPS |
| medium | 449 FPS | 781 FPS |
| high | 415 FPS | 767 FPS |
| ultra | 375 FPS | 649 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 490 FPS | 766 FPS |
| medium | 422 FPS | 629 FPS |
| high | 382 FPS | 544 FPS |
| ultra | 343 FPS | 463 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 393 FPS | 530 FPS |
| medium | 331 FPS | 457 FPS |
| high | 296 FPS | 402 FPS |
| ultra | 246 FPS | 338 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Ryzen 7 8700F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 781 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 781 FPS |
| high | 626 FPS | 781 FPS |
| ultra | 626 FPS | 781 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 781 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 781 FPS |
| high | 598 FPS | 692 FPS |
| ultra | 521 FPS | 602 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 535 FPS | 615 FPS |
| medium | 492 FPS | 553 FPS |
| high | 439 FPS | 495 FPS |
| ultra | 382 FPS | 431 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Ryzen 7 8700F

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.


Ryzen 7 8700F
Ryzen 7 8700F
The Ryzen 7 8700F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 1 April 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Phoenix (2023−2024) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 4.1 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: AM5. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 31,240 points. Launch price was $270.
Processing Power
The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Ryzen 7 8700F offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Core i5-13400F has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 5 GHz on the Ryzen 7 8700F — a 8.3% clock advantage for the Ryzen 7 8700F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 4.1 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Ryzen 7 8700F uses Phoenix (2023−2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Ryzen 7 8700F's 31,240 — a 22.1% lead for the Ryzen 7 8700F. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 16,211 vs 18,040 (10.7% advantage for the Ryzen 7 8700F). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 2,649, a 9.6% lead for the Ryzen 7 8700F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 13,500 (16.8% advantage for the Ryzen 7 8700F). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 16 MB (total) on the Ryzen 7 8700F.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Ryzen 7 8700F |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 10 / 16+25% | 8 / 16 |
| Boost Clock | 4.6 GHz | 5 GHz+9% |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz | 4.1 GHz+64% |
| L3 Cache | 20 MB (total)+25% | 16 MB (total) |
| 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) | Phoenix (2023−2024) |
| PassMark | 25,029 | 31,240+25% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 16,211 | 18,040+11% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,407 | 2,649+10% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 11,408 | 13,500+18% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Ryzen 7 8700F uses AM5 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 memory speed. The Ryzen 7 8700F supports up to 256 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 28.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 20 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and XB650,B650,A620 (Ryzen 7 8700F).
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Ryzen 7 8700F |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | AM5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+25% | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 | DDR5-5200 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 192 GB | 256 GB+33% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | No |
| PCIe Lanes | 20 | 20 |
Advanced Features
Only the Ryzen 7 8700F has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the Ryzen 7 8700F supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F) vs AMD-V (Ryzen 7 8700F). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, Ryzen 7 8700F targets High-performance Gaming w/ dGPU. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; Ryzen 7 8700F rivals Core i7-14700F.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Ryzen 7 8700F |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | Yes |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | AMD-V |
| Target Use | Gaming | High-performance Gaming w/ dGPU |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the Ryzen 7 8700F debuted at $270. On MSRP ($196 vs $270), the Core i5-13400F is $74 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 115.7 pts/$ for the Ryzen 7 8700F — making the Core i5-13400F the 9.9% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Ryzen 7 8700F |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $196-27% | $270 |
| Performance per Dollar | 127.7+10% | 115.7 |
| Release Date | 2023 | 2024 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












