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

✅+1.3% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅+25% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 16 MB).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Launch MSRP is still $196 MSRP, while Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌712.5% higher power demand at 65W vs 8W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +17.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 8W instead of 65W, a 57W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon 780M, while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,000 vs 16,211).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 20 MB).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS

2023

Why buy it

✅+1.3% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅+25% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 16 MB).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +17.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 8W instead of 65W, a 57W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon 780M, while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Launch MSRP is still $196 MSRP, while Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌712.5% higher power demand at 65W vs 8W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,000 vs 16,211).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 20 MB).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-13400F better than Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS is ahead with a 17.6% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-13400F pulls ahead with 1.3% better Cinebench R23 multi-core. Core i5-13400F also has the bigger cache pool with 25% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 16 MB).

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 1.3% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 10 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 25% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 16 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 at an unclear MSRP at $196 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you 1.3% better Cinebench R23 multi-core. The trade-off is that Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 17.6% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 25% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 16 MB) and more multi-core headroom with 10 cores / 16 threads instead of 8/16. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

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

Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS
1080p
low	171 FPS	269 FPS
medium	158 FPS	243 FPS
high	132 FPS	204 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	176 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	236 FPS
medium	123 FPS	193 FPS
high	99 FPS	157 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	139 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	164 FPS
medium	74 FPS	136 FPS
high	59 FPS	105 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	92 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS
1080p
low	545 FPS	511 FPS
medium	464 FPS	421 FPS
high	389 FPS	363 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	323 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	447 FPS
medium	403 FPS	388 FPS
high	345 FPS	334 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	285 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	295 FPS
medium	247 FPS	267 FPS
high	231 FPS	253 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	217 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS
1080p
low	530 FPS	683 FPS
medium	449 FPS	683 FPS
high	415 FPS	647 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	546 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	683 FPS
medium	422 FPS	637 FPS
high	382 FPS	541 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	464 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	541 FPS
medium	331 FPS	473 FPS
high	296 FPS	419 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	355 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS
1080p
low	626 FPS	683 FPS
medium	626 FPS	683 FPS
high	626 FPS	683 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	683 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	683 FPS
medium	626 FPS	683 FPS
high	598 FPS	660 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	573 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	572 FPS
medium	492 FPS	511 FPS
high	439 FPS	457 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	394 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS

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.

Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS

The Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 13 June 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 4 GHz, with boost up to 5.2 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB. L2 cache: 8 MB. Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: FP7/FP8. Thermal design power (TDP): 8 MB + 16 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 27,318 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS 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 5.2 GHz on the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS — a 12.2% clock advantage for the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS (base: 2.5 GHz vs 4 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS uses Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS's 27,318 — a 8.7% lead for the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 16,211 vs 16,000 (1.3% advantage for the Core i5-13400F). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 2,605, a 7.9% lead for the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 10,348 (9.7% advantage for the Core i5-13400F). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 16 MB on the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS
Cores / Threads	10 / 16+25%	8 / 16
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz	5.2 GHz+13%
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	4 GHz+60%
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)+25%	16 MB
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)	8 MB+540%
Process	Intel 7 nm	4 nm-43%
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023)
PassMark	25,029	27,318+9%
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211+1%	16,000
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407	2,605+8%
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408+10%	10,348

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS uses FP7/FP8 (PCIe 4.0) — 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 64 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 20 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and SoC (Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS
Socket	LGA1700	FP7/FP8
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	DDR5-5600
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+200%	64 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	20

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F) vs Yes (Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS). The Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS includes integrated graphics (Radeon 780M), while the Core i5-13400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.