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

✅+48.7% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $353 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
✅Delivers 316.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 30.7 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3r2 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 1900X across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 32 MB).

Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (16,829 vs 25,029).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 30.7 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($549 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3r2 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

2017

Why buy it

✅+48.7% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $353 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
✅Delivers 316.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 30.7 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3r2 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 1900X across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 32 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (16,829 vs 25,029).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 30.7 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($549 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3r2 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-13400F better than Ryzen Threadripper 1900X?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Ryzen Threadripper 1900X 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 streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-13400F is the better fit. You are getting 48.7% better PassMark, backed by 10 cores and 16 threads.

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

Core i5-13400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-13400F is $353 cheaper on MSRP at $196 MSRP versus $549 MSRP, and it gives you 48.7% better PassMark. The trade-off is that Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 5.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 316.6% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 30.7 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

Core i5-13400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2017), a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of SP3r2, and more multi-core headroom with 10 cores / 16 threads instead of 8/16. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

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

Ryzen Threadripper 1900X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
1080p
low	171 FPS	227 FPS
medium	158 FPS	198 FPS
high	132 FPS	163 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	118 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	183 FPS
medium	123 FPS	152 FPS
high	99 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	87 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	71 FPS
medium	74 FPS	63 FPS
high	59 FPS	49 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	39 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
1080p
low	545 FPS	421 FPS
medium	464 FPS	401 FPS
high	389 FPS	341 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	280 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	392 FPS
medium	403 FPS	353 FPS
high	345 FPS	301 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	245 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	253 FPS
medium	247 FPS	228 FPS
high	231 FPS	206 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	165 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
1080p
low	530 FPS	421 FPS
medium	449 FPS	421 FPS
high	415 FPS	421 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	421 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	421 FPS
medium	422 FPS	421 FPS
high	382 FPS	421 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	399 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	421 FPS
medium	331 FPS	362 FPS
high	296 FPS	324 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	270 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
1080p
low	626 FPS	421 FPS
medium	626 FPS	421 FPS
high	626 FPS	421 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	421 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	421 FPS
medium	626 FPS	421 FPS
high	598 FPS	421 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	421 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	421 FPS
medium	492 FPS	421 FPS
high	439 FPS	421 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	371 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

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 Threadripper 1900X

The Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 31 August 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Zen (2017−2020) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.8 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3r2. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Quad-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 16,829 points. Launch price was $549.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X 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 4 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X — a 14% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.8 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X uses Zen (2017−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X's 16,829 — a 39.2% lead for the Core i5-13400F. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 32 MB on the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
Cores / Threads	10 / 16+25%	8 / 16
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+15%	4 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	3.8 GHz+52%
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	32 MB+60%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)+150%	512K (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Zen (2017−2020)
PassMark	25,029+49%	16,829
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 Ryzen Threadripper 1900X uses SP3r2 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
Socket	LGA1700	SP3r2
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	—
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	20	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F) / not specified (Ryzen Threadripper 1900X). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
Integrated GPU	No	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	—
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X debuted at $549. On MSRP ($196 vs $549), the Core i5-13400F is $353 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 30.7 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X — making the Core i5-13400F the 122.6% better value option.