
Core i5-13600K
Popular choices:

EPYC 7742
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +14.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $6,621 less on MSRP ($329 MSRP vs $6,950 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1045.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 114.5 vs 10.0 PassMark/$ ($329 MSRP vs $6,950 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 125W instead of 225W, a 100W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of TR4 and DDR4.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (37,655 vs 69,448).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (24 MB vs 256 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7742, which brings 64 cores / 128 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
EPYC 7742
2019Why buy it
- ✅+84.4% higher PassMark.
- ✅+966.7% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 24 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 64 cores / 128 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13600K across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.0 vs 114.5 PassMark/$ ($6,950 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
- ❌80% higher power demand at 225W vs 125W.
- ❌Older platform position on TR4 with DDR4, while Core i5-13600K moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core i5-13600K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Core i5-13600K
2022EPYC 7742
2019Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +14.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $6,621 less on MSRP ($329 MSRP vs $6,950 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1045.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 114.5 vs 10.0 PassMark/$ ($329 MSRP vs $6,950 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 125W instead of 225W, a 100W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of TR4 and DDR4.
Why buy it
- ✅+84.4% higher PassMark.
- ✅+966.7% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 24 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 64 cores / 128 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (37,655 vs 69,448).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (24 MB vs 256 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7742, which brings 64 cores / 128 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13600K across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.0 vs 114.5 PassMark/$ ($6,950 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
- ❌80% higher power demand at 225W vs 125W.
- ❌Older platform position on TR4 with DDR4, while Core i5-13600K moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core i5-13600K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i5-13600K better than EPYC 7742?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core i5-13600K | EPYC 7742 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 281 FPS | 192 FPS |
| medium | 264 FPS | 172 FPS |
| high | 220 FPS | 138 FPS |
| ultra | 188 FPS | 110 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 235 FPS | 157 FPS |
| medium | 198 FPS | 132 FPS |
| high | 158 FPS | 101 FPS |
| ultra | 138 FPS | 82 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 159 FPS | 72 FPS |
| medium | 133 FPS | 65 FPS |
| high | 102 FPS | 50 FPS |
| ultra | 90 FPS | 40 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-13600K | EPYC 7742 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 632 FPS | 247 FPS |
| medium | 533 FPS | 221 FPS |
| high | 450 FPS | 183 FPS |
| ultra | 416 FPS | 148 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 540 FPS | 202 FPS |
| medium | 474 FPS | 186 FPS |
| high | 403 FPS | 158 FPS |
| ultra | 351 FPS | 124 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 316 FPS | 126 FPS |
| medium | 282 FPS | 118 FPS |
| high | 269 FPS | 103 FPS |
| ultra | 238 FPS | 84 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-13600K | EPYC 7742 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 663 FPS | 629 FPS |
| medium | 543 FPS | 536 FPS |
| high | 477 FPS | 486 FPS |
| ultra | 414 FPS | 415 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 600 FPS | 524 FPS |
| medium | 499 FPS | 446 FPS |
| high | 434 FPS | 394 FPS |
| ultra | 376 FPS | 338 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 441 FPS | 389 FPS |
| medium | 381 FPS | 312 FPS |
| high | 344 FPS | 274 FPS |
| ultra | 295 FPS | 224 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-13600K | EPYC 7742 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 941 FPS | 907 FPS |
| medium | 941 FPS | 828 FPS |
| high | 923 FPS | 713 FPS |
| ultra | 831 FPS | 618 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 941 FPS | 713 FPS |
| medium | 850 FPS | 623 FPS |
| high | 738 FPS | 534 FPS |
| ultra | 651 FPS | 454 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 651 FPS | 504 FPS |
| medium | 588 FPS | 454 FPS |
| high | 529 FPS | 401 FPS |
| ultra | 437 FPS | 346 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13600K and EPYC 7742

Core i5-13600K
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 7742
EPYC 7742
The EPYC 7742 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 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 2.25 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: 69,448 points. Launch price was $6,950.
Processing Power
The Core i5-13600K packs 14 cores / 20 threads, while the EPYC 7742 offers 64 cores / 128 threads — the EPYC 7742 has 50 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.1 GHz on the Core i5-13600K versus 3.4 GHz on the EPYC 7742 — a 40% clock advantage for the Core i5-13600K (base: 3.5 GHz vs 2.25 GHz). The Core i5-13600K uses the Raptor Lake, Raptor Cove, Gracemont (2022) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 7742 uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13600K scores 37,655 against the EPYC 7742's 69,448 — a 59.4% lead for the EPYC 7742. L3 cache: 24 MB on the Core i5-13600K vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 7742.
| Feature | Core i5-13600K | EPYC 7742 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 14 / 20 | 64 / 128+357% |
| Boost Clock | 5.1 GHz+50% | 3.4 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.5 GHz+56% | 2.25 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 24 MB | 256 MB (total)+967% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core)+300% | 512K (per core) |
| Process | Intel 7 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Architecture | Raptor Lake, Raptor Cove, Gracemont (2022) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| PassMark | 37,655 | 69,448+84% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-13600K uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7742 uses TR4 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-5600 on the Core i5-13600K versus 3200 on the EPYC 7742 — the EPYC 7742 supports 199.4% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7742 supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 182.1% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13600K) vs 8 (EPYC 7742). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13600K) vs 128 (EPYC 7742) — the EPYC 7742 offers 108 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 600 series,Intel 700 series (Core i5-13600K) and SP3 (EPYC 7742).
| Feature | Core i5-13600K | EPYC 7742 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | TR4 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+25% | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-5600 | 3200+63900% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 192 GB+4915100% | 4096 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 8+300% |
| 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. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core i5-13600K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 770), while the EPYC 7742 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-13600K targets Desktop. Direct competitor: EPYC 7742 rivals Xeon Platinum 8280.
| Feature | Core i5-13600K | EPYC 7742 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | UHD Graphics 770 | None |
| Unlocked | Yes | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | Desktop | — |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-13600K launched at $329 MSRP, while the EPYC 7742 debuted at $6950. On MSRP ($329 vs $6950), the Core i5-13600K is $6621 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13600K delivers 114.5 pts/$ vs 10.0 pts/$ for the EPYC 7742 — making the Core i5-13600K the 167.9% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-13600K | EPYC 7742 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $329-95% | $6950 |
| Performance per Dollar | 114.5+1045% | 10.0 |
| Release Date | 2022 | 2019 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













