AMD EPYC 9474F vs Intel Core i5-13400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data leaves no ambiguity: the AMD EPYC 9474F dominates the Intel Core i5-13400 across every single recorded comparison. In the six head-to-head tests, all drawn from the Cinebench suite, the EPYC 9474F wins outright with zero victories for the Intel part. The margins are staggering, ranging from a 73% deficit for the i5-13400 in Cinebench R15 multi-core to an 85.4% deficit in Cinebench R23 single-core.

Starting with multi-core workloads, the gap widens as the test becomes more demanding. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 9474F scores 8748 against 2358 for the i5-13400, a delta of -73% for the Intel chip. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the EPYC 9474F posts 36451 against 8526, a -76.6% delta. The most extreme multi-core separation appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC 9474F reaches 86790 while the i5-13400 manages only 15953, a -81.6% delta. This pattern reflects the EPYC 9474F's 48 cores and 96 threads versus the i5-13400's 10 cores and 16 threads, a 38-core and 80-thread advantage that scales directly into heavily threaded rendering workloads.

Single-core results tell a similar story, although the proportional gap is even larger. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC 9474F scores 1234 versus 257 for the i5-13400, a -79.2% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 5145 against 1203, also a -76.6% delta. The largest single-core deficit appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the EPYC 9474F scores 12252 and the i5-13400 scores 1786, a -85.4% delta. This outcome is notable because the i5-13400 has a higher boost clock at 4.60 GHz compared to the EPYC 9474F's 4.10 GHz, yet the AMD part still wins decisively in per-thread performance. The data indicates that architectural efficiency, not raw clock speed, drives the single-core advantage here.

The i5-13400's standalone benchmark results provide context for its overall standing. Its average benchmark score is 24280, placing it in the 76th percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-1360P at 24344 (-0.3% delta), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 6650H at 24364 (-0.3% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 5 7540U at 24188 (0.4% delta). These are all mainstream mobile or desktop parts, which suggests the i5-13400 competes in a very different performance tier than the EPYC 9474F.

The EPYC 9474F's average benchmark score is 25103, placing it in the 77th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS at 25147 (-0.2% delta), the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H at 25201 (-0.4% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F at 25005 (0.4% delta). Interestingly, despite the EPYC 9474F's overwhelming head-to-head wins, its average score across all benchmarks is only about 3.4% higher than the i5-13400's average. This discrepancy arises because the EPYC 9474F's benchmark set in this database consists solely of Cinebench tests, while the i5-13400 has a much broader benchmark suite including 3DMark, Geekbench, and Passmark tests. The head-to-head comparisons remain the most reliable indicator of direct performance differences, and they uniformly favor the EPYC 9474F.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear verdict: the AMD EPYC 9474F is the superior processor in every measured head-to-head benchmark. Anyone selecting between these two for raw compute performance should choose the EPYC 9474F without hesitation. The 48-core, 96-thread configuration, combined with a 256 MB shared L3 cache and twelve-channel DDR5 memory support, delivers multi-core scores that the i5-13400 cannot approach. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9474F outperforms the i5-13400 by a factor of roughly 5.4x, a margin that makes the Intel part non-competitive for heavily threaded server or workstation workloads.

However, the verdict is not solely about performance. The i5-13400 occupies a different market segment entirely, designed for desktop use with integrated graphics, a 65 W TDP, and support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The EPYC 9474F targets server and workstation deployments, carries a 360 W TDP, and requires a server platform with AMD Socket SP5. The i5-13400 has a launch MSRP of $221, while the EPYC 9474F has a launch MSRP of $6780. These are not interchangeable products; the choice depends on the workload and platform requirements. For desktop users with light to moderate threading needs, the i5-13400 remains a functional option. For server workloads demanding maximum throughput, the EPYC 9474F is the clear winner, and the benchmark data confirms this without exception.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9474F wins all three multi-core head-to-head tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core it scores 8748 against 2358, in R20 it scores 36451 against 8526, and in R23 it scores 86790 against 15953. The delta ranges from -73% to -81.6% for the Intel Core i5-13400.

Q: Which processor wins in single-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9474F also wins all three single-core head-to-head tests. In Cinebench R15 single-core it scores 1234 against 257, in R20 it scores 5145 against 1203, and in R23 it scores 12252 against 1786. The deltas range from -76.6% to -85.4% for the Intel part.

Q: How do the two processors compare in core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400 has 10 cores and 16 threads. The AMD EPYC 9474F has 48 cores and 96 threads, which is 38 more cores and 80 more threads.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel memory bus. The AMD EPYC 9474F supports DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel memory bus and has a memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s.

Q: Do either of these processors include integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400 includes UHD Graphics 730. The AMD EPYC 9474F has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the ECC memory support situation?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400 does not support ECC memory. The AMD EPYC 9474F does support ECC memory.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Intel Core i5-13400 has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9474F has 48 cores and 96 threads. Base clock speeds differ: the i5-13400 runs at 2.50 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost, while the EPYC 9474F runs at 3.60 GHz base and 4.10 GHz boost. The TDP ratings are 65 W for the Intel part and 360 W for the AMD part. The i5-13400 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the EPYC 9474F uses AMD Socket SP5.

Cache configurations also differ significantly. The i5-13400 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 9474F has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The memory support differs as well: the i5-13400 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, while the EPYC 9474F supports only DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The i5-13400 has 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC 9474F has 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only).

The i5-13400 includes UHD Graphics 730, while the EPYC 9474F has no integrated graphics. ECC memory is not supported on the i5-13400 but is supported on the EPYC 9474F. The market segment differs: the i5-13400 is a desktop part, while the EPYC 9474F is a server and workstation part. The release dates differ as well, with the i5-13400 released on 2023-01-03 and the EPYC 9474F released on 2022-11-09. The launch MSRP for the i5-13400 is $221, and for the EPYC 9474F it is $6780.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i5-13400 is built on Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-S, using a 10 nm process node manufactured by Intel. The die size is 215 mm². The AMD EPYC 9474F uses Zen 4 architecture under the codename Genoa, built on a 5 nm process node manufactured by TSMC. The EPYC 9474F has 52,560 million transistors and a die size of 8x 72 mm². The process node difference is significant: 10 nm for Intel versus 5 nm for AMD, with the smaller node contributing to the EPYC 9474F's efficiency and performance density.

The generations align with these architectural differences. The i5-13400 belongs to the Core 13th Gen family, specifically the Core i5 (Raptor Lake) generation. The EPYC 9474F belongs to the EPYC 9004 series, identified as EPYC (Zen 4 (Genoa)). The cache hierarchies reflect different design philosophies. The i5-13400 allocates 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with a 20 MB shared L3. The EPYC 9474F allocates 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, but its shared L3 cache is 256 MB, a 12.8x increase over the Intel part. This large L3 cache, combined with the twelve-channel memory bus, gives the EPYC 9474F a substantial advantage in data-heavy workloads.

The foundry and manufacturing approach also differ. Intel fabricates the i5-13400 on its own 10 nm process, while TSMC fabricates the EPYC 9474F on a 5 nm process. The EPYC 9474F's transistor count of 52,560 million dwarfs the i5-13400's unspecified count, reflecting the massive scale of the server chip. The i5-13400's integrated UHD Graphics 730 is absent on the EPYC 9474F, which relies on a discrete GPU or no display output in server configurations. The EPYC 9474F also supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the i5-13400, which aligns with its server and workstation positioning.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9474F wins in every head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database. This includes all multi-core and single-core Cinebench tests. The largest multi-core margin comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC 9474F scores 86790 versus 15953, a -81.6% delta for the i5-13400. The largest single-core margin comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the EPYC 9474F scores 12252 versus 1786, a -85.4% delta. The EPYC 9474F is the clear choice for heavily threaded rendering, simulation, and server-side compute tasks where its 48 cores, 96 threads, 256 MB L3 cache, and twelve-channel memory bandwidth can be fully utilized.

The Intel Core i5-13400 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head comparisons, but it retains advantages in platform characteristics rather than raw performance. Its 65 W TDP makes it suitable for desktop builds with modest cooling requirements. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, offering flexibility in memory selection. It includes integrated UHD Graphics 730, which eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic desktop systems. Its 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and Intel Socket 1700 platform suit mainstream desktop motherboards. The i5-13400 also has a launch MSRP of $221, which is considerably lower than the EPYC 9474F's launch MSRP of $6780, though price comparisons should not be interpreted as a value judgment.

For users with workloads that fit within the i5-13400's 10-core, 16-thread configuration, such as everyday desktop computing, light content creation, or moderate multitasking, the Intel part is functional. For users with server or workstation workloads demanding maximum multi-threaded throughput, the EPYC 9474F is the only choice between these two, and the benchmark data supports this conclusion without any countervailing evidence. The wins distribution is 0 for the i5-13400 and 6 for the EPYC 9474F, making the performance hierarchy unambiguous.