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

✅Costs $12,784 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $12,980 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1899.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 6.4 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $12,980 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 350W, a 285W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon Max 9480.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon Max 9480 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (11,408 vs 55,000).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon Max 9480, which brings 56 cores / 112 threads and 80 PCIe lanes.

Xeon Max 9480

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.4% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 56 cores / 112 threads, plus 80 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅300% more PCIe lanes (80 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.4 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($12,980 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌438.5% higher power demand at 350W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Xeon Max 9480

2023

Why buy it

✅Costs $12,784 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $12,980 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1899.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 6.4 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $12,980 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 350W, a 285W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon Max 9480.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.4% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 56 cores / 112 threads, plus 80 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅300% more PCIe lanes (80 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon Max 9480 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (11,408 vs 55,000).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon Max 9480, which brings 56 cores / 112 threads and 80 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.4 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($12,980 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌438.5% higher power demand at 350W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon Max 9480 better than Core i5-13400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon Max 9480 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 gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon Max 9480 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 5.4% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 113 MB vs 20 MB.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon Max 9480 is the better fit. You are getting 382.1% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 56 cores and 112 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 462.5% larger total L3 cache (113 MB vs 20 MB).

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

Xeon Max 9480 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-13400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon Max 9480 is 6522.4% more expensive on MSRP at $12,980 MSRP versus $196 MSRP, and it gives you a 5.4% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-13400F is also 1899.1% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 6.4 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Xeon Max 9480 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 3D V-Cache and a much larger 113 MB L3 cache instead of 20 MB, more multi-core headroom with 56 cores / 112 threads instead of 10/16, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That extra cache should hold up really well in CPU-limited games and high-refresh builds.

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

Xeon Max 9480 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon Max 9480
1080p
low	171 FPS	186 FPS
medium	158 FPS	168 FPS
high	132 FPS	135 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	109 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	153 FPS
medium	123 FPS	129 FPS
high	99 FPS	98 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	81 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	71 FPS
medium	74 FPS	63 FPS
high	59 FPS	48 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	40 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon Max 9480

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon Max 9480
1080p
low	545 FPS	246 FPS
medium	464 FPS	221 FPS
high	389 FPS	184 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	146 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	205 FPS
medium	403 FPS	187 FPS
high	345 FPS	160 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	124 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	128 FPS
medium	247 FPS	119 FPS
high	231 FPS	103 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	83 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon Max 9480

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon Max 9480
1080p
low	530 FPS	815 FPS
medium	449 FPS	738 FPS
high	415 FPS	704 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	624 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	725 FPS
medium	422 FPS	652 FPS
high	382 FPS	609 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	548 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	487 FPS
medium	331 FPS	398 FPS
high	296 FPS	354 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	294 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon Max 9480

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon Max 9480
1080p
low	626 FPS	1066 FPS
medium	626 FPS	953 FPS
high	626 FPS	813 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	670 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	885 FPS
medium	626 FPS	761 FPS
high	598 FPS	646 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	532 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	644 FPS
medium	492 FPS	565 FPS
high	439 FPS	494 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	413 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon Max 9480

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Xeon Max 9480

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.

Xeon Max 9480

The Xeon Max 9480 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 10 January 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Sapphire Rapids HBM (2023) architecture. It features 56 cores and 112 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 112.5 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4677. Thermal design power (TDP): 350 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 82,913 points. Launch price was $12,980.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Xeon Max 9480 offers 56 cores / 112 threads — the Xeon Max 9480 has 46 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 3.5 GHz on the Xeon Max 9480 — a 27.2% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 1.9 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Xeon Max 9480 uses Sapphire Rapids HBM (2023) (10 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Xeon Max 9480's 82,913 — a 107.3% lead for the Xeon Max 9480. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 1,900, a 23.5% lead for the Core i5-13400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 55,000 (131.3% advantage for the Xeon Max 9480). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 112.5 MB on the Xeon Max 9480.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon Max 9480
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	56 / 112+460%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+31%	3.5 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz+32%	1.9 GHz
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	112.5 MB+463%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)	2 MB (per core)+60%
Process	Intel 7 nm-30%	10 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Sapphire Rapids HBM (2023)
PassMark	25,029	82,913+231%
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211	—
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407+27%	1,900
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408	55,000+382%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon Max 9480 uses LGA4677 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 memory speed. The Xeon Max 9480 supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 182.1% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 8 (Xeon Max 9480). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 80 (Xeon Max 9480) — the Xeon Max 9480 offers 60 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and C741 (Xeon Max 9480).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon Max 9480
Socket	LGA1700	LGA4677
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	DDR5-4800
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	4096 GB+2033%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	80+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon Max 9480 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, Xeon Max 9480 targets HPC Server. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; Xeon Max 9480 rivals EPYC 9684X.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon Max 9480
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Gaming	HPC Server

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the Xeon Max 9480 debuted at $12980. On MSRP ($196 vs $12980), the Core i5-13400F is $12784 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 6.4 pts/$ for the Xeon Max 9480 — making the Core i5-13400F the 180.9% better value option.