Core i9-13900F vs EPYC 7453

Core i9-13900F vs EPYC 7453 Performance Spectrum

Core i9-13900F

24 / 32

48,934

+1.0%

48,453

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

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 i9-13900F vs EPYC 7453 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.

Core i9-13900F vs EPYC 7453: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i9-13900F

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +31.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,046 less on MSRP ($524 MSRP vs $1,570 MSRP).
✅Delivers 202.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 93.4 vs 30.9 PassMark/$ ($524 MSRP vs $1,570 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 225W, a 160W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (36 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7453, which brings 28 cores / 56 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7453

2021

Why buy it

✅+77.8% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 36 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 28 cores / 56 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-13900F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (48,453 vs 48,934).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 30.9 vs 93.4 PassMark/$ ($1,570 MSRP vs $524 MSRP).
❌246.2% higher power demand at 225W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core i9-13900F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i9-13900F better than EPYC 7453?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. EPYC 7453 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i9-13900F is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i9-13900F is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 31.2% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i9-13900F is the stronger fit. You are getting 1% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 32 threads.

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

Core i9-13900F is the better buy right now. Core i9-13900F comes in $1,046 cheaper on MSRP at $524 MSRP versus $1,570 MSRP, and it still gives you a 31.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 202.6% better value on MSRP (93.4 vs 30.9 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Core i9-13900F makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2021), a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of SP3, and more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 32 threads instead of 28/56. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

Core i9-13900F vs EPYC 7453 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core i9-13900F

The Core i9-13900F 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 24 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 5.5 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-5600, DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 48,934 points. Launch price was $524.

EPYC 7453

The EPYC 7453 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 15 March 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture. It features 28 cores and 56 threads. Base frequency is 2.75 GHz, with boost up to 3.45 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm+ process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 225 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 48,453 points. Launch price was $1,570.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i9-13900F packs 24 cores / 32 threads, while the EPYC 7453 offers 28 cores / 56 threads — the EPYC 7453 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.5 GHz on the Core i9-13900F versus 3.45 GHz on the EPYC 7453 — a 45.8% clock advantage for the Core i9-13900F (base: 2 GHz vs 2.75 GHz). The Core i9-13900F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 7453 uses Milan (2021−2023) (7 nm+). In PassMark, the Core i9-13900F scores 48,934 against the EPYC 7453's 48,453 — a 1% lead for the Core i9-13900F. L3 cache: 36 MB (total) on the Core i9-13900F vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 7453.

Feature	Core i9-13900F	EPYC 7453
Cores / Threads	24 / 32	28 / 56+17%
Boost Clock	5.5 GHz+59%	3.45 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz	2.75 GHz+38%
L3 Cache	36 MB (total)	64 MB (total)+78%
L2 Cache	2 MB (per core)+300%	512 kB (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm	7 nm+
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Milan (2021−2023)
PassMark	48,934	48,453
Cinebench R23 Multi	37,326	—
Geekbench 6 Single	2,801	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	17,199	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i9-13900F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7453 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-5600 on the Core i9-13900F versus 3200 on the EPYC 7453 — the Core i9-13900F supports 75% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7453 supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 2033.3% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i9-13900F) vs 8 (EPYC 7453). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i9-13900F) vs 128 (EPYC 7453) — the EPYC 7453 offers 108 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: LGA1700 (Core i9-13900F) and SP3,C621A (EPYC 7453).

Feature	Core i9-13900F	EPYC 7453
Socket	LGA1700	SP3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-5600+75%	3200
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	4096 GB+2033%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	128+540%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Direct competitor: EPYC 7453 rivals Xeon Platinum 8362.

Feature	Core i9-13900F	EPYC 7453
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i9-13900F was priced at $524, while the EPYC 7453 came in at $1570. On launch pricing ($524 vs $1570), Core i9-13900F was $1046 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i9-13900F delivers 93.4 pts/$ vs 30.9 pts/$ for the EPYC 7453 — making the Core i9-13900F the 100.6% better value option.

Feature	Core i9-13900F	EPYC 7453
MSRP	$524-67%	$1570
Performance per Dollar	93.4+202%	30.9
Release Date	2023	2021

Search Core i9-13900F on Amazon

Search EPYC 7453 on Amazon

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.