Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 9754

CPU

GPU

Core i5-13400F

10 Cores16 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.6 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9754

128 Cores256 Thrd360 WWMax: 3.1 GHz2023

Popular choices:

••••i5-13400F•••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-13400F

10 / 16

25,029

0.0%

98,450

+293.3%

Ryzen AI Max+ 395

Ryzen 9 9950X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

Ryzen Threadripper 9980X

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

✅Better for gaming: +18.4% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $11,704 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $11,900 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1443.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 8.3 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $11,900 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 360W, a 295W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9754.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,211 vs 104,584).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9754, which brings 128 cores / 256 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 9754

2023

Why buy it

✅+545.1% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅+1180% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 128 cores / 256 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 i5-13400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.3 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($11,900 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌453.8% higher power demand at 360W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

EPYC 9754

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +18.4% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $11,704 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $11,900 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1443.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 8.3 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $11,900 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 360W, a 295W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9754.

Why buy it

✅+545.1% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅+1180% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 128 cores / 256 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,211 vs 104,584).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9754, which brings 128 cores / 256 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.3 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($11,900 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌453.8% higher power demand at 360W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-13400F better than EPYC 9754?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9754 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 streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9754 is the better fit. You are getting 545.1% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 128 cores and 256 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?

Core i5-13400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-13400F is $11,704 cheaper on MSRP at $196 MSRP versus $11,900 MSRP, and it gives you a 18.4% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that EPYC 9754 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 545.1% better Cinebench R23 multi-core. It is also 1443.5% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 8.3 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

EPYC 9754 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 1180% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 20 MB) and more multi-core headroom with 128 cores / 256 threads instead of 10/16. 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

EPYC 9754 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9754
1080p
low	171 FPS	163 FPS
medium	158 FPS	134 FPS
high	132 FPS	113 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	89 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	143 FPS
medium	123 FPS	114 FPS
high	99 FPS	90 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	72 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	68 FPS
medium	74 FPS	58 FPS
high	59 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	37 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9754

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9754
1080p
low	545 FPS	238 FPS
medium	464 FPS	211 FPS
high	389 FPS	174 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	138 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	195 FPS
medium	403 FPS	177 FPS
high	345 FPS	151 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	116 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	121 FPS
medium	247 FPS	112 FPS
high	231 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	79 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9754

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9754
1080p
low	530 FPS	650 FPS
medium	449 FPS	541 FPS
high	415 FPS	481 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	422 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	503 FPS
medium	422 FPS	418 FPS
high	382 FPS	365 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	318 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	371 FPS
medium	331 FPS	289 FPS
high	296 FPS	246 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	199 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9754

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9754
1080p
low	626 FPS	876 FPS
medium	626 FPS	793 FPS
high	626 FPS	682 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	592 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	695 FPS
medium	626 FPS	602 FPS
high	598 FPS	515 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	435 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	495 FPS
medium	492 FPS	441 FPS
high	439 FPS	387 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	330 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 9754

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and EPYC 9754

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 9754

The EPYC 9754 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 13 June 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Bergamo (2023) architecture. It features 128 cores and 256 threads. Base frequency is 2.25 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 360 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 98,450 points. Launch price was $11,900.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the EPYC 9754 offers 128 cores / 256 threads — the EPYC 9754 has 118 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 3.1 GHz on the EPYC 9754 — a 39% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.25 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 9754 uses Bergamo (2023) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the EPYC 9754's 98,450 — a 118.9% lead for the EPYC 9754. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 16,211 vs 104,584 (146.3% advantage for the EPYC 9754). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 1,634, a 38.3% lead for the Core i5-13400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 16,825 (38.4% advantage for the EPYC 9754). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9754.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9754
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	128 / 256+1180%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+48%	3.1 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz+11%	2.25 GHz
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	5 nm-29%
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Bergamo (2023)
PassMark	25,029	98,450+293%
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211	104,584+545%
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407+47%	1,634
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408	16,825+47%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 9754 uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 memory speed. The Core i5-13400F supports up to 192 GB of RAM compared to 6 TB — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 12 (EPYC 9754). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9754) — the EPYC 9754 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 9754).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9754
Socket	LGA1700	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	DDR5-4800
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	6 TB+3100%
RAM Channels	2	12+500%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	128+540%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F) vs AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9754). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, EPYC 9754 targets Data Center / Cloud Native. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; EPYC 9754 rivals Xeon 6780E.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 9754
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V, SEV-SNP
Target Use	Gaming	Data Center / Cloud Native

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the EPYC 9754 debuted at $11900. On MSRP ($196 vs $11900), the Core i5-13400F is $11704 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 8.3 pts/$ for the EPYC 9754 — making the Core i5-13400F the 175.7% better value option.