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 i9-13900F

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $671 less on MSRP ($524 MSRP vs $1,195 MSRP).
✅Delivers 128.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 93.4 vs 40.8 PassMark/$ ($524 MSRP vs $1,195 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 190W, a 125W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon 6517P.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (36 MB vs 72 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon 6517P, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 88 PCIe lanes.

Xeon 6517P

2025

Why buy it

✅+100% larger total L3 cache (72 MB vs 36 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 88 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅340% more PCIe lanes (88 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-13900F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (48,810 vs 48,934).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 40.8 vs 93.4 PassMark/$ ($1,195 MSRP vs $524 MSRP).
❌192.3% higher power demand at 190W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i9-13900F.

Core i9-13900F

2023

Xeon 6517P

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $671 less on MSRP ($524 MSRP vs $1,195 MSRP).
✅Delivers 128.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 93.4 vs 40.8 PassMark/$ ($524 MSRP vs $1,195 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 190W, a 125W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon 6517P.

Why buy it

✅+100% larger total L3 cache (72 MB vs 36 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 88 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅340% more PCIe lanes (88 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (36 MB vs 72 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon 6517P, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 88 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-13900F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (48,810 vs 48,934).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 40.8 vs 93.4 PassMark/$ ($1,195 MSRP vs $524 MSRP).
❌192.3% higher power demand at 190W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i9-13900F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i9-13900F better than Xeon 6517P?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon 6517P makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i9-13900F 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 i9-13900F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 11.3% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i9-13900F is the better fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 32 threads.

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

Core i9-13900F is the smarter buy today. Core i9-13900F is $671 cheaper on MSRP at $524 MSRP versus $1,195 MSRP, and it gives you a 11.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 128.6% better value on MSRP (93.4 vs 40.8 PassMark/$), 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?

Xeon 6517P is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2023) and 100% larger total L3 cache (72 MB vs 36 MB). 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 i9-13900F Benchmark Check

Xeon 6517P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i9-13900F	Xeon 6517P
1080p
low	321 FPS	192 FPS
medium	311 FPS	153 FPS
high	247 FPS	123 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	97 FPS
1440p
low	278 FPS	157 FPS
medium	240 FPS	122 FPS
high	178 FPS	95 FPS
ultra	158 FPS	76 FPS
4K
low	192 FPS	72 FPS
medium	164 FPS	60 FPS
high	123 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	38 FPS

Open Core i9-13900F Open Xeon 6517P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i9-13900F	Xeon 6517P
1080p
low	497 FPS	559 FPS
medium	434 FPS	488 FPS
high	354 FPS	396 FPS
ultra	313 FPS	353 FPS
1440p
low	422 FPS	483 FPS
medium	380 FPS	426 FPS
high	316 FPS	357 FPS
ultra	257 FPS	299 FPS
4K
low	236 FPS	302 FPS
medium	216 FPS	270 FPS
high	205 FPS	244 FPS
ultra	179 FPS	220 FPS

Open Core i9-13900F Open Xeon 6517P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i9-13900F	Xeon 6517P
1080p
low	762 FPS	1025 FPS
medium	626 FPS	986 FPS
high	543 FPS	910 FPS
ultra	467 FPS	824 FPS
1440p
low	680 FPS	859 FPS
medium	567 FPS	755 FPS
high	485 FPS	697 FPS
ultra	423 FPS	626 FPS
4K
low	497 FPS	541 FPS
medium	430 FPS	442 FPS
high	383 FPS	389 FPS
ultra	329 FPS	319 FPS

Open Core i9-13900F Open Xeon 6517P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i9-13900F	Xeon 6517P
1080p
low	1012 FPS	1022 FPS
medium	905 FPS	916 FPS
high	792 FPS	782 FPS
ultra	704 FPS	672 FPS
1440p
low	840 FPS	788 FPS
medium	739 FPS	689 FPS
high	646 FPS	586 FPS
ultra	568 FPS	504 FPS
4K
low	620 FPS	563 FPS
medium	555 FPS	501 FPS
high	491 FPS	441 FPS
ultra	430 FPS	377 FPS

Open Core i9-13900F Open Xeon 6517P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i9-13900F and Xeon 6517P

Core i9-13900F

The Core i9-13900F 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 24 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 5.5 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-5600, DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 48,934 points. Launch price was $524.

Xeon 6517P

The Xeon 6517P is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 February 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Granite Rapids (2024−2025) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L3 cache: 72 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4710. Thermal design power (TDP): 190 Watt. Memory support: DDR5(6400MT/s). Passmark benchmark score: 48,810 points. Launch price was $1,195.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i9-13900F packs 24 cores / 32 threads, while the Xeon 6517P offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Core i9-13900F has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.5 GHz on the Core i9-13900F versus 4.2 GHz on the Xeon 6517P — a 26.8% clock advantage for the Core i9-13900F (base: 2 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Core i9-13900F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Xeon 6517P uses Granite Rapids (2024−2025) (Intel 3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i9-13900F scores 48,934 against the Xeon 6517P's 48,810 — a 0.3% lead for the Core i9-13900F. L3 cache: 36 MB (total) on the Core i9-13900F vs 72 MB (total) on the Xeon 6517P.

Feature	Core i9-13900F	Xeon 6517P
Cores / Threads	24 / 32+50%	16 / 32
Boost Clock	5.5 GHz+31%	4.2 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz	3.2 GHz+60%
L3 Cache	36 MB (total)	72 MB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	2 MB (per core)	2 MB (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm	Intel 3 nm-57%
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Granite Rapids (2024−2025)
PassMark	48,934	48,810
Cinebench R23 Multi	37,326	—
Geekbench 6 Single	2,801	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	17,199	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i9-13900F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon 6517P uses LGA4710 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-5600 on the Core i9-13900F versus 6400 on the Xeon 6517P — the Xeon 6517P supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon 6517P supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 182.1% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i9-13900F) vs 8 (Xeon 6517P). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i9-13900F) vs 88 (Xeon 6517P) — the Xeon 6517P offers 68 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: LGA1700 (Core i9-13900F) and Granite Rapids-SP (Xeon 6517P).

Feature	Core i9-13900F	Xeon 6517P
Socket	LGA1700	LGA4710
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-5600	6400+127900%
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+4915100%	4096
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	88+340%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Direct competitor: Xeon 6517P rivals EPYC 9554.

Feature	Core i9-13900F	Xeon 6517P
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i9-13900F launched at $524 MSRP, while the Xeon 6517P debuted at $1195. On MSRP ($524 vs $1195), the Core i9-13900F is $671 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i9-13900F delivers 93.4 pts/$ vs 40.8 pts/$ for the Xeon 6517P — making the Core i9-13900F the 78.3% better value option.