Core i5-13600K vs EPYC 9275F

CPU

GPU

Core i5-13600K

14 Cores20 Thrd125 WWMax: 5.1 GHz2022

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9275F

24 Cores48 Thrd320 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

••••••i5-13600K•••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-13600K

14 / 20

37,655

0.0%

84,620

+124.7%

Ryzen 9 PRO 7945

Ryzen 9 9900X3D

Ryzen 9 9950X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

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 $3,110 less on MSRP ($329 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).
✅Delivers 365.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 114.5 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($329 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 320W, a 195W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 770, while EPYC 9275F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌No 3D V-Cache or similar L3 advantage, which matters in CPU-limited gaming (24 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Lower PassMark (37,655 vs 84,620).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9275F, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 9275F

2024

Why buy it

✅Massive L3 cache advantage with 256 MB vs 24 MB, which is a real win in CPU-limited gaming.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 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 24.6 vs 114.5 PassMark/$ ($3,439 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
❌156% higher power demand at 320W vs 125W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i5-13600K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i5-13600K

2022

EPYC 9275F

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $3,110 less on MSRP ($329 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).
✅Delivers 365.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 114.5 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($329 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 320W, a 195W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 770, while EPYC 9275F needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅Massive L3 cache advantage with 256 MB vs 24 MB, which is a real win in CPU-limited gaming.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌No 3D V-Cache or similar L3 advantage, which matters in CPU-limited gaming (24 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Lower PassMark (37,655 vs 84,620).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9275F, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 24.6 vs 114.5 PassMark/$ ($3,439 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
❌156% higher power demand at 320W vs 125W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i5-13600K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9275F better than Core i5-13600K?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9275F 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 9275F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% more average FPS across 3 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 9275F is the better fit. You are getting 124.7% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 48 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 9275F is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-13600K makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9275F is 945.3% more expensive on MSRP at $3,439 MSRP versus $329 MSRP, and it gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 3 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-13600K is also 365.1% better value on MSRP (114.5 vs 24.6 PassMark/$), 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 9275F 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 24 cores / 48 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 9275F Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13600K	EPYC 9275F
1080p
low	281 FPS	315 FPS
medium	264 FPS	290 FPS
high	220 FPS	241 FPS
ultra	188 FPS	204 FPS
1440p
low	235 FPS	278 FPS
medium	198 FPS	230 FPS
high	158 FPS	178 FPS
ultra	138 FPS	159 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 9275F

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13600K	EPYC 9275F
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 9275F

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13600K	EPYC 9275F
1080p
low	663 FPS	923 FPS
medium	543 FPS	748 FPS
high	477 FPS	675 FPS
ultra	414 FPS	572 FPS
1440p
low	600 FPS	724 FPS
medium	499 FPS	584 FPS
high	434 FPS	515 FPS
ultra	376 FPS	433 FPS
4K
low	441 FPS	511 FPS
medium	381 FPS	421 FPS
high	344 FPS	374 FPS
ultra	295 FPS	309 FPS

Open Core i5-13600K Open EPYC 9275F

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13600K	EPYC 9275F
1080p
low	941 FPS	1141 FPS
medium	941 FPS	1015 FPS
high	923 FPS	902 FPS
ultra	831 FPS	813 FPS
1440p
low	941 FPS	891 FPS
medium	850 FPS	785 FPS
high	738 FPS	689 FPS
ultra	651 FPS	600 FPS
4K
low	651 FPS	650 FPS
medium	588 FPS	580 FPS
high	529 FPS	515 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-13600K Open EPYC 9275F

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13600K and EPYC 9275F

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 9275F

The EPYC 9275F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 4.1 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): 320 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 84,620 points. Launch price was $3,439.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13600K packs 14 cores / 20 threads, while the EPYC 9275F offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 9275F has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.1 GHz on the Core i5-13600K versus 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9275F — a 6.1% clock advantage for the Core i5-13600K (base: 3.5 GHz vs 4.1 GHz). The Core i5-13600K uses the Raptor Lake, Raptor Cove, Gracemont (2022) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 9275F uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13600K scores 37,655 against the EPYC 9275F's 84,620 — a 76.8% lead for the EPYC 9275F. L3 cache: 24 MB on the Core i5-13600K vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9275F.

Feature	Core i5-13600K	EPYC 9275F
Cores / Threads	14 / 20	24 / 48+71%
Boost Clock	5.1 GHz+6%	4.8 GHz
Base Clock	3.5 GHz	4.1 GHz+17%
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	84,620+125%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13600K uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 9275F uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-5600 on the Core i5-13600K versus 6000 on the EPYC 9275F — the EPYC 9275F supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9275F supports up to 6144 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13600K) vs 12 (EPYC 9275F). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13600K) vs 128 (EPYC 9275F) — the EPYC 9275F offers 108 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 600 series,Intel 700 series (Core i5-13600K) and SP5 (EPYC 9275F).

Feature	Core i5-13600K	EPYC 9275F
Socket	LGA1700	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-5600	6000+119900%
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+3276700%	6144
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 9275F supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13600K) vs VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9275F). The Core i5-13600K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 770), while the EPYC 9275F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-13600K targets Desktop. Direct competitor: EPYC 9275F rivals Xeon 6980P.

Feature	Core i5-13600K	EPYC 9275F
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics 770	None
Unlocked	Yes	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP
Target Use	Desktop	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13600K launched at $329 MSRP, while the EPYC 9275F debuted at $3439. On MSRP ($329 vs $3439), the Core i5-13600K is $3110 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13600K delivers 114.5 pts/$ vs 24.6 pts/$ for the EPYC 9275F — making the Core i5-13600K the 129.2% better value option.