Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 9475F

CPU

GPU

Core i5-13400F

10 Cores16 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.6 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9475F

48 Cores96 Thrd400 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

••••i5-13400F•••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-13400F

10 / 16

25,029

0.0%

122,476

+389.3%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

Ryzen Threadripper 9980X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX

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 $7,396 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
✅Delivers 691.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 400W, a 335W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9475F.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9475F across 9 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (11,408 vs 45,000).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9475F, which brings 48 cores / 96 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 9475F

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +38.8% higher average FPS across 9 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 16.1 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌515.4% higher power demand at 400W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

EPYC 9475F

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $7,396 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
✅Delivers 691.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 400W, a 335W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9475F.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +38.8% higher average FPS across 9 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 9475F across 9 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (11,408 vs 45,000).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9475F, which brings 48 cores / 96 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.1 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌515.4% higher power demand at 400W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9475F better than Core i5-13400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9475F 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 9475F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 38.8% more average FPS across 9 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 9475F is the better fit. You are getting 294.5% better Geekbench multi-core, 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 9475F is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-13400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9475F is 3773.5% more expensive on MSRP at $7,592 MSRP versus $196 MSRP, and it gives you a 38.8% average FPS lead across 9 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-13400F is also 691.6% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 16.1 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

EPYC 9475F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2023), 3D V-Cache and a much larger 256 MB L3 cache instead of 20 MB, more multi-core headroom with 48 cores / 96 threads instead of 10/16, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. 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 9475F Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9475F
1080p
low	171 FPS	315 FPS
medium	158 FPS	289 FPS
high	132 FPS	240 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	203 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	278 FPS
medium	123 FPS	230 FPS
high	99 FPS	178 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	157 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	191 FPS
medium	74 FPS	157 FPS
high	59 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	107 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9475F

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9475F
1080p
low	545 FPS	725 FPS
medium	464 FPS	618 FPS
high	389 FPS	485 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	421 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	579 FPS
medium	403 FPS	510 FPS
high	345 FPS	419 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	341 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	338 FPS
medium	247 FPS	300 FPS
high	231 FPS	270 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	239 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9475F

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9475F
1080p
low	530 FPS	906 FPS
medium	449 FPS	738 FPS
high	415 FPS	668 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	566 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	702 FPS
medium	422 FPS	570 FPS
high	382 FPS	503 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	424 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	496 FPS
medium	331 FPS	411 FPS
high	296 FPS	365 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	302 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9475F

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9475F
1080p
low	626 FPS	1139 FPS
medium	626 FPS	1015 FPS
high	626 FPS	901 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	812 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	888 FPS
medium	626 FPS	782 FPS
high	598 FPS	687 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	598 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	648 FPS
medium	492 FPS	578 FPS
high	439 FPS	513 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9475F

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and EPYC 9475F

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 9475F

The EPYC 9475F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 3.65 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 400 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 122,476 points. Launch price was $7,592.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the EPYC 9475F offers 48 cores / 96 threads — the EPYC 9475F has 38 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9475F — a 4.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 9475F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.65 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 9475F uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the EPYC 9475F's 122,476 — a 132.1% lead for the EPYC 9475F. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 1,960, a 20.5% lead for the Core i5-13400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 45,000 (119.1% advantage for the EPYC 9475F). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9475F.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9475F
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	48 / 96+380%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz	4.8 GHz+4%
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	3.65 GHz+46%
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	256 MB (total)+1180%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)+25%	1 MB (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm	4 nm-43%
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Turin (2024)
PassMark	25,029	122,476+389%
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211	—
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407+23%	1,960
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408	45,000+294%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 9475F uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 memory speed. The EPYC 9475F supports up to 6144 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 12 (EPYC 9475F). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9475F) — the EPYC 9475F offers 108 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and SP5 (EPYC 9475F).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9475F
Socket	LGA1700	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	DDR5-6000
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	6144 GB+3100%
RAM Channels	2	12+500%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	128+540%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the EPYC 9475F supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F) vs AMD-V (EPYC 9475F). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, EPYC 9475F targets Server. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; EPYC 9475F rivals Xeon 6952P.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9475F
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V
Target Use	Gaming	Server

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the EPYC 9475F debuted at $7592. On MSRP ($196 vs $7592), the Core i5-13400F is $7396 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 16.1 pts/$ for the EPYC 9475F — making the Core i5-13400F the 155.1% better value option.