Core i5-13400F vs EPYC 7F32

CPU

GPU

Core i5-13400F

10 Cores16 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.6 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7F32

8 Cores16 Thrd180 WWMax: 3.9 GHz2020

Popular choices:

••••i5-13400F•••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-13400F

10 / 16

25,029

+7.6%

23,253

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen 9 7945HX3D

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

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: +4.5% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,904 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $2,100 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1053.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 11.1 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $2,100 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 32 MB).

EPYC 7F32

2020

Why buy it

✅+60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (23,253 vs 25,029).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 11.1 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($2,100 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Core i5-13400F

2023

EPYC 7F32

2020

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.5% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,904 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $2,100 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1053.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 11.1 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $2,100 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅+60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 32 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (23,253 vs 25,029).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 11.1 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($2,100 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-13400F better than EPYC 7F32?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7F32 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, Core i5-13400F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 4.5% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-13400F is the better fit. You are getting 7.6% better PassMark, backed by 10 cores and 16 threads.

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

Core i5-13400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-13400F is $1,904 cheaper on MSRP at $196 MSRP versus $2,100 MSRP, and it gives you a 4.5% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 1053.3% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 11.1 PassMark/$), 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?

Core i5-13400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2020), a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of SP3, and more multi-core headroom with 10 cores / 16 threads instead of 8/16. 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 7F32 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7F32
1080p
low	171 FPS	193 FPS
medium	158 FPS	158 FPS
high	132 FPS	136 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	100 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	167 FPS
medium	123 FPS	135 FPS
high	99 FPS	111 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	80 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	69 FPS
medium	74 FPS	58 FPS
high	59 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	37 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 7F32

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7F32
1080p
low	545 FPS	433 FPS
medium	464 FPS	379 FPS
high	389 FPS	309 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	259 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	367 FPS
medium	403 FPS	332 FPS
high	345 FPS	277 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	229 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	236 FPS
medium	247 FPS	215 FPS
high	231 FPS	191 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	159 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 7F32

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7F32
1080p
low	530 FPS	581 FPS
medium	449 FPS	580 FPS
high	415 FPS	541 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	466 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	535 FPS
medium	422 FPS	437 FPS
high	382 FPS	401 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	342 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	383 FPS
medium	331 FPS	300 FPS
high	296 FPS	268 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	213 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 7F32

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7F32
1080p
low	626 FPS	581 FPS
medium	626 FPS	581 FPS
high	626 FPS	581 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	581 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	581 FPS
medium	626 FPS	581 FPS
high	598 FPS	564 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	479 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	519 FPS
medium	492 FPS	468 FPS
high	439 FPS	415 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	357 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open EPYC 7F32

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and EPYC 7F32

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 7F32

The EPYC 7F32 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 14 April 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 23,253 points. Launch price was $2,100.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the EPYC 7F32 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Core i5-13400F has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 3.9 GHz on the EPYC 7F32 — a 16.5% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.7 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 7F32 uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the EPYC 7F32's 23,253 — a 7.4% lead for the Core i5-13400F. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 32 MB (total) on the EPYC 7F32.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7F32
Cores / Threads	10 / 16+25%	8 / 16
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+18%	3.9 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	3.7 GHz+48%
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	32 MB (total)+60%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)+150%	512 kB (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm	7 nm, 14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Zen 2 (2017−2020)
PassMark	25,029+8%	23,253
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 7F32 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7F32
Socket	LGA1700	SP3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	—
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	20	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F) / not specified (EPYC 7F32). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	EPYC 7F32
Integrated GPU	No	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	—
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the EPYC 7F32 debuted at $2100. On MSRP ($196 vs $2100), the Core i5-13400F is $1904 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 11.1 pts/$ for the EPYC 7F32 — making the Core i5-13400F the 168.1% better value option.