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

✅Better for gaming: +10.4% higher average FPS across 9 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $803 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
✅Delivers 477.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 22.1 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3r2 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,211 vs 18,780).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1950, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Ryzen Threadripper 1950

2017

Why buy it

✅+15.8% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅+60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅220% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 9 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 22.1 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($999 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 1950

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +10.4% higher average FPS across 9 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $803 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
✅Delivers 477.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 22.1 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3r2 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅+15.8% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅+60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅220% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,211 vs 18,780).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1950, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 9 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 22.1 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($999 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 1950?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Ryzen Threadripper 1950 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, Ryzen Threadripper 1950 is the better fit. You are getting 15.8% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).

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

Core i5-13400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-13400F is $803 cheaper on MSRP at $196 MSRP versus $999 MSRP, and it gives you a 10.4% average FPS lead across 9 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that Ryzen Threadripper 1950 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 15.8% better Cinebench R23 multi-core. It is also 477.8% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 22.1 PassMark/$), 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) and a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of SP3r2. 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 1950 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
1080p
low	171 FPS	173 FPS
medium	158 FPS	153 FPS
high	132 FPS	124 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	99 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	139 FPS
medium	123 FPS	117 FPS
high	99 FPS	92 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	74 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	65 FPS
medium	74 FPS	59 FPS
high	59 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	36 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1950

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
1080p
low	545 FPS	336 FPS
medium	464 FPS	304 FPS
high	389 FPS	261 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	210 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	287 FPS
medium	403 FPS	264 FPS
high	345 FPS	228 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	182 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	184 FPS
medium	247 FPS	169 FPS
high	231 FPS	147 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	115 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1950

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
1080p
low	530 FPS	552 FPS
medium	449 FPS	505 FPS
high	415 FPS	458 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	407 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	531 FPS
medium	422 FPS	439 FPS
high	382 FPS	385 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	341 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	401 FPS
medium	331 FPS	318 FPS
high	296 FPS	281 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	234 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1950

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
1080p
low	626 FPS	552 FPS
medium	626 FPS	552 FPS
high	626 FPS	552 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	487 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	552 FPS
medium	626 FPS	535 FPS
high	598 FPS	462 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	391 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	416 FPS
medium	492 FPS	382 FPS
high	439 FPS	343 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	295 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1950

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Ryzen Threadripper 1950

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 1950

The Ryzen Threadripper 1950 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 July 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Zen (2017−2020) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3r2. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Quad-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 22,077 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 3.2 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 — a 35.9% 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 Ryzen Threadripper 1950 uses Zen (2017−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Ryzen Threadripper 1950's 22,077 — a 12.5% lead for the Core i5-13400F. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 16,211 vs 18,780 (14.7% advantage for the Ryzen Threadripper 1950). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 1,961, a 20.4% lead for the Core i5-13400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 10,100 (12.2% advantage for the Core i5-13400F). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 32 MB on the Ryzen Threadripper 1950.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	16 / 32+60%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+44%	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	3.2 GHz+28%
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	32 MB+60%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)+150%	512 kB (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Zen (2017−2020)
PassMark	25,029+13%	22,077
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211	18,780+16%
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407+23%	1,961
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408+13%	10,100

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 uses SP3r2 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-13400F versus DDR4-2666 on the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 — the Core i5-13400F supports 22.2% 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 128 GB — 40% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 4 (Ryzen Threadripper 1950). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 64 (Ryzen Threadripper 1950) — the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 offers 44 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and X399 (Ryzen Threadripper 1950).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
Socket	LGA1700	SP3r2
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200+25%	DDR4-2666
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+50%	128 GB
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	64+220%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 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 (Ryzen Threadripper 1950). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, Ryzen Threadripper 1950 targets Workstation. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; Ryzen Threadripper 1950 rivals Core i9-7960X.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V
Target Use	Gaming	Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 debuted at $999. On MSRP ($196 vs $999), the Core i5-13400F is $803 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 22.1 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 — making the Core i5-13400F the 141% better value option.