Core i5-13600K vs EPYC 9475F

CPU

GPU

Core i5-13600K

14 Cores20 Thrd125 WWMax: 5.1 GHz2022

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9475F

48 Cores96 Thrd400 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

••••••i5-13600K•••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-13600K

14 / 20

37,655

0.0%

122,476

+225.3%

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 i5-13600K

2022

Why buy it

✅Costs $7,263 less on MSRP ($329 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
✅Delivers 609.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 114.5 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($329 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 400W, a 275W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 770, while EPYC 9475F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9475F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (37,655 vs 122,476).
❌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: +8.3% higher average FPS across 4 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 114.5 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
❌220% higher power demand at 400W vs 125W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i5-13600K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i5-13600K

2022

EPYC 9475F

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $7,263 less on MSRP ($329 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
✅Delivers 609.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 114.5 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($329 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 400W, a 275W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 770, while EPYC 9475F needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.3% higher average FPS across 4 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 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (37,655 vs 122,476).
❌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 114.5 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
❌220% higher power demand at 400W vs 125W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i5-13600K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9475F better than Core i5-13600K?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9475F makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-13600K 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 8.3% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 256 MB vs 24 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 225.3% better PassMark, backed by 48 cores and 96 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 966.7% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 24 MB).

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

EPYC 9475F is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-13600K makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9475F is 2207.6% more expensive on MSRP at $7,592 MSRP versus $329 MSRP, and it gives you a 8.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-13600K is also 609.5% better value on MSRP (114.5 vs 16.1 PassMark/$), 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 2022), 3D V-Cache and a much larger 256 MB L3 cache instead of 24 MB, more multi-core headroom with 48 cores / 96 threads instead of 14/20, 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 i5-13600K Benchmark Check

EPYC 9475F Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13600K	EPYC 9475F
1080p
low	281 FPS	315 FPS
medium	264 FPS	289 FPS
high	220 FPS	240 FPS
ultra	188 FPS	203 FPS
1440p
low	235 FPS	278 FPS
medium	198 FPS	230 FPS
high	158 FPS	178 FPS
ultra	138 FPS	157 FPS
4K
low	159 FPS	191 FPS
medium	133 FPS	157 FPS
high	102 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	90 FPS	107 FPS

Open Core i5-13600K Open EPYC 9475F

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13600K	EPYC 9475F
1080p
low	632 FPS	725 FPS
medium	533 FPS	618 FPS
high	450 FPS	485 FPS
ultra	416 FPS	421 FPS
1440p
low	540 FPS	579 FPS
medium	474 FPS	510 FPS
high	403 FPS	419 FPS
ultra	351 FPS	341 FPS
4K
low	316 FPS	338 FPS
medium	282 FPS	300 FPS
high	269 FPS	270 FPS
ultra	238 FPS	239 FPS

Open Core i5-13600K Open EPYC 9475F

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13600K	EPYC 9475F
1080p
low	663 FPS	906 FPS
medium	543 FPS	738 FPS
high	477 FPS	668 FPS
ultra	414 FPS	566 FPS
1440p
low	600 FPS	702 FPS
medium	499 FPS	570 FPS
high	434 FPS	503 FPS
ultra	376 FPS	424 FPS
4K
low	441 FPS	496 FPS
medium	381 FPS	411 FPS
high	344 FPS	365 FPS
ultra	295 FPS	302 FPS

Open Core i5-13600K Open EPYC 9475F

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13600K	EPYC 9475F
1080p
low	941 FPS	1139 FPS
medium	941 FPS	1015 FPS
high	923 FPS	901 FPS
ultra	831 FPS	812 FPS
1440p
low	941 FPS	888 FPS
medium	850 FPS	782 FPS
high	738 FPS	687 FPS
ultra	651 FPS	598 FPS
4K
low	651 FPS	648 FPS
medium	588 FPS	578 FPS
high	529 FPS	513 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-13600K Open EPYC 9475F

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13600K and EPYC 9475F

Core i5-13600K

The Core i5-13600K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 27 September 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Raptor Lake, Raptor Cove, Gracemont (2022) architecture. It features 14 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 5.1 GHz. L3 cache: 24 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR4, DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 37,655 points. Launch price was $319.

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 i5-13600K packs 14 cores / 20 threads, while the EPYC 9475F offers 48 cores / 96 threads — the EPYC 9475F has 34 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.1 GHz on the Core i5-13600K versus 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9475F — a 6.1% clock advantage for the Core i5-13600K (base: 3.5 GHz vs 3.65 GHz). The Core i5-13600K uses the Raptor Lake, Raptor Cove, Gracemont (2022) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 9475F uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13600K scores 37,655 against the EPYC 9475F's 122,476 — a 105.9% lead for the EPYC 9475F. L3 cache: 24 MB on the Core i5-13600K vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9475F.

Feature	Core i5-13600K	EPYC 9475F
Cores / Threads	14 / 20	48 / 96+243%
Boost Clock	5.1 GHz+6%	4.8 GHz
Base Clock	3.5 GHz	3.65 GHz+4%
L3 Cache	24 MB	256 MB (total)+967%
L2 Cache	2 MB (per core)+100%	1 MB (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm	4 nm-43%
Architecture	Raptor Lake, Raptor Cove, Gracemont (2022)	Turin (2024)
PassMark	37,655	122,476+225%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,960
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	45,000

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13600K 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 DDR5-5600 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 i5-13600K) vs 12 (EPYC 9475F). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13600K) vs 128 (EPYC 9475F) — the EPYC 9475F offers 108 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 600 series,Intel 700 series (Core i5-13600K) and SP5 (EPYC 9475F).

Feature	Core i5-13600K	EPYC 9475F
Socket	LGA1700	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-5600	DDR5-6000
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	6144 GB+3100%
RAM Channels	2	12+500%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	128+540%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core i5-13600K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the EPYC 9475F supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13600K) vs AMD-V (EPYC 9475F). The Core i5-13600K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 770), while the EPYC 9475F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-13600K targets Desktop, EPYC 9475F targets Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 9475F rivals Xeon 6952P.

Feature	Core i5-13600K	EPYC 9475F
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics 770	None
Unlocked	Yes	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V
Target Use	Desktop	Server

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13600K launched at $329 MSRP, while the EPYC 9475F debuted at $7592. On MSRP ($329 vs $7592), the Core i5-13600K is $7263 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13600K delivers 114.5 pts/$ vs 16.1 pts/$ for the EPYC 9475F — making the Core i5-13600K the 150.6% better value option.