
Core i5-13400F

Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
Core i5-13400F vs Ryzen Threadripper 1950X Performance Spectrum
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.
Core i5-13400F vs Ryzen Threadripper 1950X FPS Benchmarks
Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.
Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Core i5-13400F vs Ryzen Threadripper 1950X: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
Core i5-13400F
2023Why buy it
- ✅+26.8% higher Geekbench multi-core.
- ✅Costs $803 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 364.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 27.5 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3r2 and DDR4.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 1950X across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 32 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1950X, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.
Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
2017Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +15.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅220% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (9,000 vs 11,408).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 27.5 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($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 1950X?
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?
Core i5-13400F vs Ryzen Threadripper 1950X Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

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 1950X
The Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 August 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Zen (2017−2020) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.4 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): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Quad-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 27,487 points. Launch price was $999.
Processing Power
The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 4 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X — a 14% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.4 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X uses Zen (2017−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X's 27,487 — a 9.4% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 1,040, a 79.3% lead for the Core i5-13400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 9,000 (23.6% advantage for the Core i5-13400F). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 32 MB on the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Ryzen Threadripper 1950X |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 10 / 16 | 16 / 32+60% |
| Boost Clock | 4.6 GHz+15% | 4 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz | 3.4 GHz+36% |
| L3 Cache | 20 MB (total) | 32 MB+60% |
| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 512K (per core)+40860% |
| Process | Intel 7 nm-50% | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) | Zen (2017−2020) |
| PassMark | 25,029 | 27,487+10% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 16,211 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,407+131% | 1,040 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 11,408+27% | 9,000 |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 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 1950X — the Core i5-13400F supports 80% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Ryzen Threadripper 1950X supports up to 256 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 33.3% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 4 (Ryzen Threadripper 1950X). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 64 (Ryzen Threadripper 1950X) — the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 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 1950X).
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Ryzen Threadripper 1950X |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | SP3r2 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+25% | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200+80% | DDR4-2666 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 192 GB | 256 GB+33% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 4+100% |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 20 | 64+220% |
Advanced Features
Only the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 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 1950X). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, Ryzen Threadripper 1950X targets Workstation. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Ryzen Threadripper 1950X |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | Yes |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | AMD-V |
| Target Use | Gaming | Workstation |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Core i5-13400F was priced at $196, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X came in at $999. On launch pricing ($196 vs $999), Core i5-13400F was $803 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 27.5 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X — making the Core i5-13400F the 129.1% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Ryzen Threadripper 1950X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $196-80% | $999 |
| Performance per Dollar | 127.7+364% | 27.5 |
| Release Date | 2023 | 2017 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.














