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: +3.1% higher average FPS across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $603 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Delivers 362.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 27.6 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 140W, a 75W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3r2 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1920, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads.

Ryzen Threadripper 1920

2017

Why buy it

✅+60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 12 cores / 24 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (22,066 vs 25,029).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 27.6 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($799 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌115.4% higher power demand at 140W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3r2 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Ryzen Threadripper 1920

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.1% higher average FPS across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $603 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Delivers 362.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 27.6 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 140W, a 75W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3r2 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅+60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 12 cores / 24 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1920, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (22,066 vs 25,029).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 27.6 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($799 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌115.4% higher power demand at 140W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3r2 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-13400F better than Ryzen Threadripper 1920?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Ryzen Threadripper 1920 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 3.1% more average FPS across 7 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 13.4% 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 $603 cheaper on MSRP at $196 MSRP versus $799 MSRP, and it gives you a 3.1% average FPS lead across 7 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 362.4% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 27.6 PassMark/$), 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 2017), a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of SP3r2, and more multi-core headroom with 10 cores / 16 threads instead of 12/24. 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

Ryzen Threadripper 1920 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
1080p
low	171 FPS	175 FPS
medium	158 FPS	156 FPS
high	132 FPS	129 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	105 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	143 FPS
medium	123 FPS	121 FPS
high	99 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	65 FPS
medium	74 FPS	59 FPS
high	59 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	37 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1920

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
1080p
low	545 FPS	398 FPS
medium	464 FPS	357 FPS
high	389 FPS	304 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	252 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	339 FPS
medium	403 FPS	309 FPS
high	345 FPS	265 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	219 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	217 FPS
medium	247 FPS	197 FPS
high	231 FPS	179 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	145 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1920

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
1080p
low	530 FPS	552 FPS
medium	449 FPS	539 FPS
high	415 FPS	501 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	442 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	552 FPS
medium	422 FPS	464 FPS
high	382 FPS	418 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	367 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	420 FPS
medium	331 FPS	334 FPS
high	296 FPS	303 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	252 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1920

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
1080p
low	626 FPS	552 FPS
medium	626 FPS	552 FPS
high	626 FPS	552 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	528 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	552 FPS
medium	626 FPS	552 FPS
high	598 FPS	493 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	423 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	444 FPS
medium	492 FPS	408 FPS
high	439 FPS	367 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	318 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1920

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Ryzen Threadripper 1920

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 Threadripper 1920

The Ryzen Threadripper 1920 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 July 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Zen (2017−2020) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3r2. Thermal design power (TDP): 140 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Quad-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 22,066 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 3.8 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 — a 19% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 uses Zen (2017−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Ryzen Threadripper 1920's 22,066 — a 12.6% lead for the Core i5-13400F. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 32 MB on the Ryzen Threadripper 1920.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	12 / 24+20%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+21%	3.8 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	3.2 GHz+28%
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	32 MB+60%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)+150%	512 kB (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Zen (2017−2020)
PassMark	25,029+13%	22,066
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 Ryzen Threadripper 1920 uses SP3r2 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
Socket	LGA1700	SP3r2
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 (Ryzen Threadripper 1920). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
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 Ryzen Threadripper 1920 debuted at $799. On MSRP ($196 vs $799), the Core i5-13400F is $603 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 27.6 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 — making the Core i5-13400F the 128.9% better value option.