AMD EPYC 9474F vs Intel Core i5-13400F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9474F wins every single head-to-head test, and by a massive margin. Across the entire Cinebench suite—R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core—the EPYC 9474F dominates the Intel Core i5-13400F with deltas ranging from -74% to -75.6%. The smallest gap is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the EPYC scores 8748 against the i5's 2278, a 74% deficit. The largest is in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the EPYC's 36451 crushes the i5's 8892, a 75.6% gap.

Single-core performance tells the same story, which is surprising for a server part. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 9474F scores 12252 versus the i5-13400F's 3191—again a 74% difference. The EPYC's 4.10 GHz boost clock is lower than the i5's 4.60 GHz, yet the Zen 4 architecture's IPC advantage and the higher base clock of 3.60 GHz versus 2.50 GHz more than compensate. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the gap is identical at 75.6%: 5145 versus 1255.

The multi-core results are where the EPYC's 48 cores and 96 threads simply overwhelm the i5's 10 cores and 16 threads. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 86790 for the EPYC against 22604 for the i5. That is roughly 3.8 times the score. The same ratio appears in R15 multi-core (8748 versus 2278) and R20 multi-core (36451 versus 8892). There is no nuance here—the EPYC is in a different performance class entirely.

The i5-13400F does not win a single benchmark in the head-to-head set. Its wins, if any, would have to come from the broader benchmark suite, but even there the data is lopsided. The i5's best showing is in PassMark single-thread, where it scores 3634, but the EPYC has no PassMark results in the data pack to compare against. The only comparable tests are Cinebench, and the EPYC wins all six. The deltaPct values are all negative for the i5, indicating the EPYC's superiority is consistent and not workload-dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9474F has 48 cores and 96 threads. The Intel Core i5-13400F has 10 cores and 16 threads. The EPYC has 4.8 times the core count and 6 times the thread count.

Q: Is the single-core performance gap as large as the multi-core gap?

A: Yes. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 12252 versus the i5's 3191, a 74% difference. In R20 single-core, the gap is 75.6% (5145 versus 1255). The EPYC's higher base clock (3.60 GHz versus 2.50 GHz) and Zen 4 architecture deliver superior per-thread performance despite the i5's higher boost clock.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 9474F supports twelve-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The i5-13400F supports dual-channel DDR4 and DDR5, but the fact pack lists no memory bandwidth figure for it. The EPYC's memory bus width and bandwidth are fundamentally designed for server workloads.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 9474F has ECC memory support enabled. The Intel Core i5-13400F does not support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher launch MSRP?

A: The AMD EPYC 9474F has a launch MSRP of $6780. The Intel Core i5-13400F has a launch MSRP of $196. The EPYC is priced for the server/workstation segment, while the i5 is a desktop part.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i5-13400F has an average benchmark score of 25292, while the EPYC 9474F has an average of 25103. Despite the EPYC's dominance in Cinebench, the i5's broader benchmark suite (including PassMark tests) keeps its average nearly identical. Both sit at the 77th percentile among all CPUs.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Intel Core i5-13400F uses Raptor Lake, specifically Raptor Lake-S, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. The die size is 215 mm². The AMD EPYC 9474F uses Zen 4, codenamed Genoa, fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process. Its chiplet design uses eight dies, each 72 mm², for a combined transistor count of 52,560 million.

Cache organization differs sharply. The i5 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. That 256 MB L3 is 12.8 times the i5's 20 MB, which is critical for server workloads with large working sets.

Memory architecture is another chasm. The i5 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The EPYC supports only DDR5, but in a twelve-channel configuration, yielding 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC also has ECC memory support; the i5 does not.

PCIe connectivity is similarly lopsided. The i5 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The EPYC provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU—eight times the lane count. This makes the EPYC suitable for massive I/O expansion, while the i5 is limited to a single GPU or a few NVMe drives.

The socket and platform are incompatible. The i5 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5. The i5 is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP; the EPYC is a server/workstation part with a 360 W TDP. The EPYC's power envelope is 5.5 times higher, reflecting its core count and memory bandwidth.

The i5's base clock is 2.50 GHz and boost clock is 4.60 GHz. The EPYC's base clock is 3.60 GHz and boost is 4.10 GHz. The i5 boosts higher, but the EPYC's base clock is substantially higher, which helps sustained all-core workloads. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data makes the choice obvious for specific use cases, but the two parts are not competitors. The AMD EPYC 9474F wins every single head-to-head benchmark by at least 74%. That is a massive, consistent margin across both single-core and multi-core tests. The EPYC's 48 cores, 96 threads, 256 MB L3 cache, twelve-channel DDR5 memory, and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes are designed for server and workstation workloads that demand maximum throughput and memory bandwidth.

The Intel Core i5-13400F is not in the same performance class. Its 10 cores, 16 threads, and 20 MB L3 cache are typical for a mainstream desktop processor. The i5 does win in one respect: it is dramatically more power-efficient, with a 65 W TDP versus the EPYC's 360 W. It also supports both DDR4 and DDR5, giving builders flexibility in platform choice. For desktop gaming, productivity, and general computing, the i5's 77th percentile ranking and average score of 25292 show it is a capable mid-range part.

The EPYC's average benchmark score is actually slightly lower at 25103, despite its Cinebench dominance. This is because the i5 has a much larger benchmark suite in the data pack, including PassMark tests where it scores well in single-thread and integer operations. However, in the tests that both chips share, the EPYC is superior by a wide margin.

Who should pick which? If the workload is multi-threaded rendering, scientific computing, virtualization, or any server-class task, the EPYC 9474F is the only choice. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 86790 is 3.8 times the i5's 22604. If the workload is mainstream desktop use—gaming, web browsing, office productivity—the i5 is more than adequate, and its lower TDP and platform cost make it practical. But the data shows no scenario where the i5 outperforms the EPYC in a shared benchmark.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-13400F | AMD EPYC 9474F |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 10 | 48 |

| Threads | 16 | 96 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 4.10 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 360 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Process Node | 10 nm (Intel) | 5 nm (TSMC) |

| Die Size | 215 mm² | 8x 72 mm² |

| Transistors | Not specified | 52,560 million |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 20 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Twelve-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not specified | 460.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 128 Lanes |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Launch MSRP | $196 | $6780 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9474F wins every benchmark where both processors have results. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core, the EPYC is ahead by 74% to 75.6%. This makes it the clear winner for any workload that uses Cinebench as a proxy: 3D rendering, animation, visual effects, and other multi-threaded creative tasks. The EPYC's 256 MB L3 cache and twelve-channel memory bandwidth also make it suited for large data sets, virtualization, and database workloads, though those specific benchmarks are not in the head-to-head data.

The Intel Core i5-13400F wins in contexts not captured by the shared benchmarks. Its PassMark scores show strength in single-threaded tasks (3634) and integer math (79942), which are relevant for desktop responsiveness and general productivity. The i5's 65 W TDP means it can be cooled with a modest air cooler and run in compact cases, whereas the EPYC's 360 W TDP requires a serious cooling solution and a server-class motherboard. The i5 also supports DDR4, which can lower platform build cost, though pricing is not analyzed here.

For a desktop user who plays games, browses the web, and runs office applications, the i5-13400F is the practical choice—not because it wins benchmarks, but because its lower power draw and smaller platform footprint are aligned with desktop needs. For a server administrator or workstation user running continuous multi-threaded workloads, the EPYC 9474F is the only rational option based on the data. The 3.8 times multi-core Cinebench R23 score is not a marginal difference; it is a generational gap. The EPYC's 77th percentile ranking, identical to the i5's, is misleading—the percentile is computed against all CPUs, not against each other. In direct comparison, the EPYC is in a different league.