Intel Core i5-13400E vs Intel Core i9-9940X Comparison

The Intel Core i9-9940X and Intel Core i5-13400E occupy the same average performance tier, separated by a razor-thin 0.3% delta in aggregate benchmark scores. The i9-9940X, a 14-core Skylake-X part from late 2018, edges out the 10-core Raptor Lake i5-13400E from early 2023 in every recorded Cinebench test, yet the i5 counters with superior process technology, a newer platform, and dramatically lower power requirements. This comparison illustrates how architectural generation gaps can offset core-count advantages.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i9-9940X scores 23810 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 3.7% higher than the i5-13400E's 22950. The i9 wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare to each other and to the nearest rival?

A: The i9-9940X has an average benchmark score of 6657, while the i5-13400E averages 6638, a 0.3% difference. Both sit within 0.6% of the AMD EPYC 72F3, which averages 6700.

Q: Does the newer i5-13400E support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the i5-13400E supports ECC memory. The i9-9940X does not support ECC, despite being a higher-end HEDT part.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each CPU?

A: The i9-9940X has 14 cores and 28 threads. The i5-13400E has 10 cores and 16 threads. The i9 has 4 more cores and 12 more threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The i5-13400E has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, which is slightly higher than the i9-9940X's 4.50 GHz boost clock.

Q: What is the production status of each chip?

A: The i9-9940X is end-of-life, while the i5-13400E is active and currently in production.

Architecture Differences

The i9-9940X is built on Intel's Skylake-X architecture using a 14 nm process node, with a die size of 484 mm². It belongs to the Core i9 X-Series 9th Gen family and uses the Intel Socket 2066 platform. In contrast, the i5-13400E uses the newer Raptor Lake architecture (Raptor Lake-S codename) on a 10 nm node, with a much smaller die size of 215 mm². This process advantage allows the i5 to achieve near-parity performance with fewer cores and a 65W TDP versus the i9's 165W TDP.

The i9-9940X offers 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, while the i5-13400E provides 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core. For L3 cache, the i9 has 19.25 MB shared, while the i5 has 20 MB shared. The i5 also features integrated UHD Graphics 730, whereas the i9 has no integrated graphics. The i9 uses a quad-channel memory bus with DDR4 support and 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the i5 uses a dual-channel bus supporting both DDR4 and DDR5, with no bandwidth figure listed.

PCIe connectivity differs significantly: the i9 provides Gen 3 with 44 lanes, while the i5 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The i9 has an unlocked multiplier, while the i5 is locked. The i5 supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the i9.

Where Each One Wins

The i9-9940X wins in every recorded benchmark, but the margins are consistent rather than dramatic. Its largest advantage is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where it scores 2400 versus 2313, a 3.8% lead. It also wins single-core tests by similar margins, such as 338 versus 326 in R15 single-core (3.7% lead). The i9's additional 4 cores and 12 threads provide a clear, if modest, multi-threaded advantage in render workloads.

The i5-13400E, despite losing all six benchmarks, wins in platform-level considerations. It has a significantly lower TDP of 65W versus 165W, making it far easier to cool in compact systems. It supports newer PCIe Gen 5 connectivity, dual-channel DDR5 memory, and includes integrated graphics for basic display output. Its 10 nm process node and smaller die size indicate better power efficiency per unit of performance. For buyers prioritizing a modern, efficient platform over raw multi-core muscle, the i5 presents a compelling alternative even in defeat.

The i9-9940X remains the choice for users who need maximum thread count and sustained multi-core throughput in a desktop form factor, particularly for heavily threaded rendering or encoding tasks. The i5-13400E suits builds where power consumption, modern I/O, and ECC support matter more than the roughly 4% performance delta.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i9-9940X | Intel Core i5-13400E |

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

| Cores | 14 | 10 |

| Threads | 28 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.30 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.50 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 165 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 2066 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Skylake | Raptor Lake |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 10 nm |

| Die Size | 484 mm² | 215 mm² |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 19.25 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 85.3 GB/s | Not listed |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 44 Lanes | Gen 5, 16 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Launch MSRP | $1387 | Not listed |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The i9-9940X wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but the margins are tightly clustered between 3.7% and 3.8%. The largest win comes in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the i9 scores 2400 against the i5's 2313, a 3.8% delta. This result reflects the i9's 14 cores and 28 threads, which provide a meaningful advantage in heavily threaded workloads despite the i5's newer architecture.

In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the i9 scores 10000 versus 9639, a 3.7% lead. The i5 comes closest in R23 multi-core, scoring 22950 against the i9's 23810, again a 3.7% gap. Single-core results mirror the multi-core trend: the i9 leads by 3.7% in R15 single-core (338 vs 326), by 3.8% in R20 single-core (1411 vs 1360), and by 3.7% in R23 single-core (3361 vs 3240). Notably, the i5's higher 4.60 GHz boost clock does not translate into a single-core victory, as the i9's 4.50 GHz boost still produces higher scores.

The Geekbench results, available only for the i9-9940X, show a multi-core score of 10466 and a single-core score of 1468. The i5-13400E has no Geekbench data listed, so cross-comparison is limited to the Cinebench suite. The i9's average benchmark score of 6657 places it 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X (6647) and 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core i9-12900E (6611). The i5-13400E's average of 6638 puts it 0.1% behind the Threadripper and 0.4% ahead of the i9-12900E. Both CPUs sit in the 62nd percentile of all CPUs, indicating they deliver similar real-world performance tiers.

The i9-9940X's wins are consistent but narrow, suggesting that the i5-13400E's architectural efficiency nearly compensates for its 4-core deficit. A 3.7% multi-core advantage in Cinebench R23 translates to a tangible but not transformative difference in render times. For users who already own a Skylake-X platform, the upgrade incentive to Raptor Lake is minimal based on these numbers alone. Conversely, those building new systems might favor the i5 for its lower TDP and modern platform, accepting a small performance penalty.