Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 7642

CPU

GPU

Core i5-13400F

10 Cores16 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.6 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7642

48 Cores96 Thrd225 WWMax: 3.4 GHz2019

Popular choices:

••••i5-13400F•••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-13400F

10 / 16

25,029

0.0%

59,333

+137.1%

Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370

Ryzen 9 5900X

Ryzen 9 5950X

Ryzen 9 9850HX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

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.

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 $4,579 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $4,775 MSRP).
✅Delivers 927.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 12.4 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $4,775 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 225W, a 160W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of TR4 and DDR4.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7642.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7642 across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 59,333).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7642, which brings 48 cores / 96 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7642

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.5% higher average FPS across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 48 cores / 96 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.4 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($4,775 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌246.2% higher power demand at 225W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on TR4 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

EPYC 7642

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $4,579 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $4,775 MSRP).
✅Delivers 927.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 12.4 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $4,775 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 225W, a 160W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of TR4 and DDR4.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7642.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.5% higher average FPS across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 48 cores / 96 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 EPYC 7642 across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 59,333).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7642, which brings 48 cores / 96 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.4 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($4,775 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌246.2% higher power demand at 225W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on TR4 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 7642 better than Core i5-13400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7642 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, EPYC 7642 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 4.5% more average FPS across 8 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 256 MB vs 20 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7642 is the better fit. You are getting 137.1% better PassMark, backed by 48 cores and 96 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 1180% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 20 MB).

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

EPYC 7642 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-13400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 7642 is 2336.2% more expensive on MSRP at $4,775 MSRP versus $196 MSRP, and it gives you a 4.5% average FPS lead across 8 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-13400F is also 927.7% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 12.4 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Core i5-13400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2019) and a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of TR4. 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

EPYC 7642 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7642
1080p
low	171 FPS	192 FPS
medium	158 FPS	172 FPS
high	132 FPS	138 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	110 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	157 FPS
medium	123 FPS	132 FPS
high	99 FPS	101 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	82 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	72 FPS
medium	74 FPS	65 FPS
high	59 FPS	50 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	40 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 7642

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7642
1080p
low	545 FPS	427 FPS
medium	464 FPS	381 FPS
high	389 FPS	312 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	249 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	351 FPS
medium	403 FPS	321 FPS
high	345 FPS	271 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	210 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	216 FPS
medium	247 FPS	202 FPS
high	231 FPS	171 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	139 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 7642

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7642
1080p
low	530 FPS	629 FPS
medium	449 FPS	536 FPS
high	415 FPS	486 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	415 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	524 FPS
medium	422 FPS	446 FPS
high	382 FPS	394 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	338 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	389 FPS
medium	331 FPS	312 FPS
high	296 FPS	274 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	224 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 7642

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7642
1080p
low	626 FPS	909 FPS
medium	626 FPS	829 FPS
high	626 FPS	715 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	619 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	714 FPS
medium	626 FPS	624 FPS
high	598 FPS	535 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	455 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	505 FPS
medium	492 FPS	455 FPS
high	439 FPS	401 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	346 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 7642

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and EPYC 7642

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.

EPYC 7642

The EPYC 7642 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 7 August 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: TR4. Thermal design power (TDP): 225 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 59,333 points. Launch price was $4,775.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the EPYC 7642 offers 48 cores / 96 threads — the EPYC 7642 has 38 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 3.4 GHz on the EPYC 7642 — a 30% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 7642 uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the EPYC 7642's 59,333 — a 81.3% lead for the EPYC 7642. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 7642.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7642
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	48 / 96+380%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+35%	3.4 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz+4%	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	256 MB (total)+1180%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)+150%	512K (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm	7 nm, 14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Zen 2 (2017−2020)
PassMark	25,029	59,333+137%
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 EPYC 7642 uses TR4 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-13400F versus 3200 on the EPYC 7642 — the EPYC 7642 supports 199.4% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7642 supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 182.1% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 8 (EPYC 7642). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 128 (EPYC 7642) — the EPYC 7642 offers 108 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and SP3 (EPYC 7642).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7642
Socket	LGA1700	TR4
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	3200+63900%
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+4915100%	4096
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	128+540%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; EPYC 7642 rivals Xeon Platinum 8380.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7642
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the EPYC 7642 debuted at $4775. On MSRP ($196 vs $4775), the Core i5-13400F is $4579 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 12.4 pts/$ for the EPYC 7642 — making the Core i5-13400F the 164.5% better value option.