Intel Core i5-13400F
AMD EPYC 9654
Select video card 1
Select video card 2

Intel Core i5-13400F vs AMD EPYC 9654. Specifications, performance, tests

Overall score
star star star star star
Released
Q1/2023
Intel Core i5-13400F
Intel Core i5-13400F
Released
Q4/2022
Overall score
star star star star star
AMD EPYC 9654
AMD EPYC 9654

What's the best choice Intel Core i5-13400F or AMD EPYC 9654? Which processor is faster?

We have prepared a comparison to help you choose the best processor. Compare their specifications and benchmarks.

Intel Core i5-13400F has a maximum frequency of 2.50 GHz (4.60 GHz). 10 / 16 Cores. Power consumption of 65 W. Released in Q1/2023.

AMD EPYC 9654 has a maximum frequency of 2.40 GHz. 96 / 192 Cores. Power consumption of 360 W. Released in Q4/2022.

Differences

  • Place in the overall ranking

    (based on several benchmarks)

    128 left arrow score
  • Higher clock speed

    Around 4% better clock speed

    2.50 GHz (4.60 GHz) left arrow 2.40 GHz
  • Performance per watt

    times less performance per watt

    65 W left arrow 360 W

Positions in all rankings

Common positions Intel Core i5-13400F CPU in popular benchmarks, for comparison with other models.

  • Cinebench R23 (Single-Core)
    58 place
  • Cinebench R23 (Multi-Core)
    80 place
  • Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)
    163 place
  • Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
    211 place
  • Geekbench 6 (Single-Core)
    79 place
AMD EPYC 9654 Reasons to consider
AMD EPYC 9654
Report a bug
  • Place in the overall ranking

    (based on several benchmarks)

    77 left arrow score
  • More number of cores

    About 9.6 times more cores

    96 left arrow 10

Positions in all rankings

Common positions AMD EPYC 9654 CPU in popular benchmarks, for comparison with other models.

  • Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)
    212 place
  • Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
    2 place
  • Geekbench 6 (Single-Core)
    149 place
  • Geekbench 6 (Multi-Core)
    6 place

Specifications

Technical data
Intel Core i5-13400F Intel Core i5-13400F
AMD EPYC 9654 AMD EPYC 9654
CPU family and group

Background information about the processors being compared, series, generation and market segment.

  • Family
    Intel Core i5 left arrow AMD EPYC
  • CPU group
    Intel Core i 13000 left arrow AMD EPYC 9004
  • Segment
    Desktop / Server left arrow Desktop / Server
  • Generation
    13 left arrow 4
  • Predecessor
    Intel Core i5-12400 left arrow --
CPU Technical specs

Basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base and turbo frequency, and cache size. These parameters indirectly tell about the speed of the processor, the higher they are the better.

  • CPU Cores / Threads
    10 / 16 left arrow 96 / 192
  • Core architecture
    hybrid (big.LITTLE) left arrow normal
  • Hyperthreading / SMT
    Yes left arrow Yes
  • Overclocking
    No left arrow No
IGPU

Internal Graphics does not affect the performance of the CPU, performs the work of the graphics card in its absence or on mobile devices.

  • GPU name
    no iGPU left arrow no iGPU
  • GPU (Turbo)
    No turbo left arrow No turbo
Hardware codec support

Built-in codecs used to encode and decode content. Significantly speeds up the required operations.

  • h265 / HEVC (8 bit)
    No left arrow No
  • h265 / HEVC (10 bit)
    No left arrow No
  • h264
    No left arrow No
  • VP8
    No left arrow No
  • VP9
    No left arrow No
  • AV1
    No left arrow No
  • AVC
    No left arrow No
  • VC-1
    No left arrow No
  • JPEG
    No left arrow No
Memory specs & PCI

Types, channel quantity of RAM supported by AMD EPYC 9654 and Intel Core i5-13400F. Depending on the motherboards, higher or lower memory frequencies may be supported.

  • Memory type
    DDR5-4800 left arrow DDR5-4800
  • Max. Memory
    128 GB left arrow 6144 GB
  • Memory channels
    2 (Dual Channel) left arrow 12
  • Bandwidth
    89.6 GB/s left arrow 461.0 GB/s
  • ECC
    Yes left arrow Yes
  • PCIe
    5.0 x 20 left arrow 5.0 x 128
  • AES-NI
    Yes left arrow Yes
Thermal Management

Compare the TDP requirements of TDP Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD EPYC 9654 to select a cooling system. Note, the TDP value refers to thermal watts, not electrical watts.

  • TDP (PL1)
    65 W left arrow 360 W
  • TDP (PL2)
    117 W left arrow --
  • TDP up
    -- left arrow 400 W
  • TDP down
    -- left arrow 320 W
  • Tjunction max.
    100 °C left arrow 100 °C
Technologies and extensions

Architecture, interfaces, additional instructions supported by Intel Core i5-13400F and Intel Core i5-13400F, virtual machine technologies and process technology.

  • Technology
    10 nm left arrow 5 nm
  • Chip design
    Monolithic left arrow Chiplet
  • Socket
    LGA 1700 left arrow SP5
  • L2-Cache
    20.00 MB left arrow 96.00 MB
  • L3-Cache
    20.00 MB left arrow 384.00 MB
  • Architecture
    Alder Lake S Refresh left arrow Genoa (Zen 4)
  • Operating systems
    Windows 10, Windows 11, Linux left arrow Windows Server 2022, Linux, Windows 11
  • Virtualization
    VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d left arrow AMD-V, SVM
  • Instruction set (ISA)
    x86-64 (64 bit) left arrow x86-64 (64 bit)
  • ISA extensions
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, AVX2+ left arrow SSE4.2, AVX2, AVX-512, BFLOAT16, VNNI
  • Release date
    Q1/2023 left arrow Q4/2022
  • Release price
    -- left arrow 11805 $
  • Part Number
    -- left arrow 100-000000789
  • Documents
    -- left arrow Technical data sheet

Benchmarks

Performance tests CPUs

Based on the results of several benchmarks, you can more accurately estimate the difference in performance between Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD EPYC 9654.

Compare the synthetic test values and choose the best processor!

Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 5 SC is a popular cross-platform performance test for desktop or mobile processors that uses system memory intensively
1644
Intel Core i5-13400F
846
AMD EPYC 9654
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 5 MC is a popular cross-platform performance test for desktop or mobile processors that uses system memory intensively
10309
Intel Core i5-13400F
68024
AMD EPYC 9654

Latest comparisons