SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core i5-13400F + NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000

Get a comprehensive performance analysis of your gaming rig with detailed benchmarks, bottleneck detection, and upgrade recommendations

Build Configuration

Select your components

PROCESSOR (CPU)

▼

GRAPHICS CARD (GPU)

▼

89 Score

Top 11% Ranking

89 / 100

HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 11% of systems. Excellent for 1440p Ultra or 4K High gaming.

1440p Ultra4K High

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio

Well Balanced

CPU

87%

GPU

91%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core i5-13400F

25,292 Benchmark Score

Top 13% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000

21,629 Benchmark Score

Top 9% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

Market Position

How your build compares to others

Budget

0-30

Mid-Range

30-60

High-End

60-85

Enthusiast

85-100

Your Build

Game Performance Benchmarks

Real-world 4K FPS in popular titles

View All Games →

Performance Insights

Tips to maximize your system

Strong Performance

Excellent for 1440p gaming. Most games will run at high/ultra settings smoothly.

Compatible Games See what you can play Compare CPUs Find upgrades Compare GPUs Find upgrades

Performance Tiers Explained

90-100

Ultimate

4K Ultra gaming, VR ready, ray tracing enabled, professional workloads

4K 60+ FPS VR Ready

70-89

High-End

1440p Ultra or 4K High settings, excellent for modern AAA titles

1440p Ultra 4K High

50-69

Mid-Range

1080p Ultra or 1440p Medium, great value for most gamers

1080p Ultra 1440p Med

30-49

Entry Level

1080p Medium settings, suitable for eSports and older titles

1080p Med eSports

0-29

Legacy

Basic gaming, older titles, consider upgrading for modern games

720p-1080p Low Older Games

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is an intriguing desktop combination that mixes a modern 13th-generation CPU with a professional workstation GPU based on older Turing architecture. The data shows a substantial gap in generational technology between the two components, which creates a unique performance profile. This analysis relies exclusively on the benchmark scores and specifications provided, with no real-world gaming measurements available for this exact pairing. The following sections interpret what the raw numbers mean for rendering, compute, gaming, and professional workloads.

GPU Analysis — VRAM, bandwidth, clocks, RT/tensor hardware, what the benchmark scores mean for rendering

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is a workstation-class GPU built on the Turing architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process by TSMC. The chip, designated TU104, packs 13,600 million transistors on a 545 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The GPU operates at a base clock of 1620 MHz and boosts up to 1815 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz, translating to 14 Gbps effective. The 16 GB of GDDR6 memory sits on a 256-bit bus, producing a bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s — a figure that remains competitive for large datasets and high-resolution textures, though newer architectures offer more.

The GPU’s compute resources are substantial: 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. For ray tracing and AI acceleration, the Quadro RTX 5000 includes 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and deep learning inference. The pixel rate is 116.2 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 348.5 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is rated at 11.15 TFLOPS for FP32 and 22.30 TFLOPS for FP16 (2:1 ratio). These numbers suggest the card is well-suited for professional 3D rendering and compute tasks that leverage tensor cores, though the 12 nm process and Turing architecture predate the efficiency gains of later generations.

Benchmark results place this GPU in the 67th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 21629. Its nearest rivals in the data include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB, which scores 21856 (a delta of -1%), and the RTX A4000 Mobile at 21379 (delta of 1.2%). The Quadro RTX 5000 also edges out the AMD Radeon HD 8970M and the Radeon RX Vega M GL, which score 21237 and 21153 respectively. This proximity to a GTX 1060 is notable: it implies that while the Quadro’s workstation features and 16 GB VRAM are superior, raw rasterization performance is not dramatically higher than a mainstream gaming card from the same era.

In terms of rendering, the 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for ray-traced and AI-accelerated workflows. The 16 GB VRAM is a standout feature, allowing large scenes and complex textures to reside in memory without spilling to system RAM. The 448.0 GB/s bandwidth supports data-intensive operations, but the benchmark scores suggest that the GPU’s raw compute throughput is modest by modern standards. DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 indicate compatibility with current graphics APIs, while OpenGL 4.6 covers legacy professional applications. The display outputs include 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C, which suit multi-monitor workstation setups.

Benchmark Performance — exact CPU and GPU scores, percentile positions, and what the combined picture is

The Intel Core i5-13400F delivers a strong showing in synthetic benchmarks, with an average benchmark score of 25292 and a percentile rank of 77 among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS (score 25284, delta 0%), the Intel Core 5 120 (score 25362, delta -0.3%), the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (score 25365, delta -0.3%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H (score 25201, delta 0.4%). Essentially, the i5-13400F sits in a tight pack with these chips, trading blows within a fraction of a percent. The 3DMark results show scalability: 1880 for 2 threads, 3459 for 4 threads, 5591 for 8 threads, 7314 for 16 threads, and 7307 for max threads. The single-thread score of 960 is modest, but the scaling from 2 to 16 threads indicates strong multi-core efficiency.

Cinebench scores reinforce the CPU’s multi-core capability: R15 multicore hits 2278 and single-core 321; R20 multicore reaches 8892 and single-core 1255; R23 multicore peaks at 22604 and single-core at 3191. Geekbench results show a multicore score of 11068 and a single-core score of 1996. PassMark tests reveal specific workload strengths: data compression scores 311364, data encryption 16608, extended instructions 19847, find prime numbers 83, floating point math 60539, integer math 79942, multithread 25032, physics 1437, random string sorting 32076, and single thread 3634. These numbers indicate a CPU that excels in parallel tasks like 3D rendering, video encoding, and scientific calculations, while still offering respectable single-thread performance for everyday applications.

The GPU’s benchmark results are more mixed. Geekbench OpenCL scores 78999, and Vulkan scores 92309, which are respectable for compute workloads. PassMark results show DirectX 10 at 113, DirectX 11 at 140, DirectX 12 at 59, DirectX 9 at 195, G2D at 709, G3D at 15616, and GPU compute at 6525. The low DirectX 12 score of 59 is striking when compared to DirectX 11’s 140, suggesting that the Turing architecture’s driver optimization for newer APIs may be suboptimal, or that the workload used in the test does not favor this GPU. The G3D score of 15616 places it in the 67th percentile, which is respectable but not top-tier. The GPU compute score of 6525 underscores its professional focus, where FP32 and FP16 throughput matter more than gaming-centric metrics.

Combined, the CPU’s 77th percentile and GPU’s 67th percentile yield a combined percentile of 72 for this desktop build. The CPU is clearly the stronger component relative to its peers, while the GPU lags in percentile terms. In mixed workloads, the CPU may frequently outpace the GPU’s capabilities, but for GPU-bound tasks like rendering or gaming, the Quadro RTX 5000 becomes the limiting factor. The data suggests a pairing where the CPU has ample headroom to feed the GPU, but the GPU may be the bottleneck in graphics-intensive scenarios.

Gaming Performance — measured FPS by game and resolution from measuredFpsUltraByGame (or, if dataIsMeasured is false, frame expectations qualitatively from the benchmark scores and say the figures are estimates)

No measured FPS rows exist for this exact combination — the FACT PACK contains no measuredFps data. Consequently, all frame rate discussions are estimates derived from the benchmark scores, and they should be treated as approximations rather than verified figures. The data indicates that this pairing is not optimized for high-refresh gaming, primarily due to the GPU’s modest percentile rank and the low DirectX 12 benchmark score.

At 1080p with ultra settings, the Quadro RTX 5000’s G3D score of 15616 suggests it can handle older or less demanding titles at playable frame rates, but modern AAA games with heavy effects may struggle to maintain 60 FPS. The DirectX 11 score of 140 is higher than DirectX 12’s 59, implying that games running on DirectX 11 may perform better than those using DirectX 12. For 1440p, the 16 GB VRAM and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth help with texture loading, but the raw compute throughput of 11.15 TFLOPS FP32 limits pixel-pushing capability, so frame rates would likely drop further. At 4K, the GPU would be severely challenged, and the data suggests that only less graphically intensive games or those with lower settings would be playable.

The CPU’s strong multi-core scores, particularly the Cinebench R23 multicore of 22604 and PassMark multithread of 25032, ensure that it will not bottleneck the GPU in most gaming scenarios. However, the single-thread score of 960 in 3DMark is below some competitors, which could impact frame pacing in CPU-bound titles. The nearest rival GPU, the GTX 1060 6 GB, scores nearly identically in average benchmarks, which historically delivers around 60 FPS at 1080p in many games from its era. The Quadro RTX 5000’s higher VRAM and tensor cores do not translate directly to gaming FPS, so expectations should be moderate. Overall, the gaming performance is estimated to be adequate for 1080p at medium-to-high settings in many titles, but not suitable for ultra settings at high resolutions or for competitive esports at very high refresh rates.

Balance and Bottleneck — which component limits which workload, using percentiles and FPS scaling as evidence

The balance between the Core i5-13400F and the Quadro RTX 5000 is asymmetric. The CPU’s 77th percentile rank versus the GPU’s 67th percentile indicates that the GPU is the weaker link in most graphics-intensive workloads. In gaming, the GPU is the primary bottleneck; the low DirectX 12 score of 59 and the G3D score of 15616 suggest that frame rates will be limited by the GPU’s rasterization and API-specific performance, not by the CPU’s ability to feed frames. The CPU’s high multi-core scores, such as the Cinebench R23 multicore of 22604 and 3DMark 16-thread score of 7314, mean it can handle physics, AI, and game logic without breaking a sweat, but the GPU will cap the output.

Conversely, in CPU-bound workloads like data compression (PassMark score of 311364), encryption (16608), and integer math (79942), the CPU takes the lead, and the GPU’s role diminishes. For 3D rendering, the balance shifts depending on the renderer: CPU-based rendering will leverage the i5-13400F’s 10 cores and 16 threads, while GPU-based rendering (e.g., using CUDA or OpenCL) will engage the Quadro’s 3072 shading units and 384 tensor cores. The GPU’s Geekbench OpenCL score of 78999 and Vulkan score of 92309 indicate it can accelerate compute, but the CPU’s PassMark multithread score of 25032 means it can handle many parallel tasks simultaneously.

FPS scaling, as inferred from the benchmark scores, shows that at lower resolutions, the CPU may occasionally become a secondary bottleneck due to its single-thread score of 960, but at higher resolutions, the GPU’s limitations dominate. The combined percentile of 72 suggests a system that is balanced overall, but the specific workload determines which component is the constraint. For productivity tasks like video editing, the CPU’s multi-core strength and the GPU’s compute capabilities can complement each other, but the GPU’s 67th percentile means it will not accelerate effects or encoding as fast as newer GPUs. The data points to a system where the CPU is ready for future GPU upgrades, as it has headroom to support a more powerful graphics card.

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work. One short paragraph per scenario, citing the numbers that support the verdict

High-refresh gaming: This system is not ideal for high-refresh gaming. The GPU’s G3D score of 15616 and DirectX 12 score of 59 indicate it will struggle to hit 144 FPS at 1080p in modern titles, and the CPU’s single-thread score of 960 does not provide exceptional frame pacing. Expect moderate frame rates, suitable for 60 Hz monitors rather than 144 Hz or higher.

Streaming: The CPU’s strong multi-core performance (Cinebench R23 multicore 22604, PassMark multithread 25032) enables software encoding without significant game performance loss. The GPU’s tensor cores could assist with AI-based encoding, but its modest overall scores suggest that a dedicated encoder or CPU encoding is the safer path. The 16 GB VRAM helps with multiple tasks simultaneously, but the GPU’s 67th percentile limits high-quality encoding at high resolutions.

Video editing: The combination works well for video editing. The CPU handles timeline scrubbing and export with its 10 cores and 16 threads, evidenced by Geekbench multicore of 11068 and PassMark multithread of 25032. The GPU accelerates effects and rendering via OpenCL (score 78999) and Vulkan (92309), with 16 GB VRAM allowing large preview buffers. The DirectX 12 score of 59 is concerning for some effects, but overall, this is a capable editing workstation.

3D rendering: This is a strong use case. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22604 excels at CPU-based rendering, while the GPU’s 3072 shading units and 384 tensor cores (FP32 11.15 TFLOPS, FP16 22.30 TFLOPS) handle GPU-accelerated renders. The 16 GB VRAM and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth support large scenes. The GPU’s 67th percentile means it is not top-tier, but for mid-range professional rendering, it is adequate.

Software development: The CPU’s PassMark integer math score of 79942 and data compression score of 311364 indicate strong compilation and build times. The GPU is less relevant for most development tasks, but its compute capabilities can accelerate machine learning workloads via tensor cores. The 16 GB VRAM is useful for running local inference models, though the GPU’s overall compute score of 6525 is moderate.

Student and office work: This system is overkill for office tasks. The CPU’s single-thread score of 3634 in PassMark ensures snappy response in spreadsheets and documents, while the GPU’s G2D score of 709 handles 2D graphics adequately. The high power and cost of the GPU are wasted on such workloads, but the system would run smoothly for multitasking and productivity.

Upgrade Path and Platform — socket, memory support, PCIe, PSU headroom from suggestedPsu/tdp, what a sensible next upgrade looks like

The CPU uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform with a Raptor Lake architecture (Raptor Lake-S) and a 10 nm process node. It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, giving builders flexibility in choosing memory technology. The PCIe interface is Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, which provides ample bandwidth for modern GPUs and NVMe drives. The CPU’s TDP is 65 W, which is modest, and it is not multiplier unlocked, meaning overclocking is limited. The launch MSRP for the CPU is $196.

The GPU uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface, which is backward compatible with the CPU’s Gen 5 slots, so no bottleneck is expected from the interface. The GPU’s TDP is 230 W, and the suggested PSU is 550 W, which leaves headroom for the CPU and other components. The GPU requires 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, so the PSU must have these available. The GPU is dual-slot and measures 267 mm in length, so case compatibility should be checked.

A sensible next upgrade would be replacing the Quadro RTX 5000 with a newer GPU that offers higher percentile performance. The CPU’s 77th percentile and PCIe Gen 5 support mean it can handle a more powerful graphics card without bottlenecking. The 65 W TDP leaves thermal and power headroom for a larger GPU, provided the PSU is upgraded accordingly (the suggested 550 W is sufficient for the current GPU but may need to be increased for a more power-hungry model). The memory support for both DDR4 and DDR5 allows for a future platform upgrade, though the socket 1700 is likely a dead end for newer CPU generations. The 16 GB GPU VRAM is already generous, so the primary upgrade path is GPU performance rather than capacity.

CPU Analysis — cores, clocks, architecture, what the benchmark scores mean for real workloads

The Intel Core i5-13400F is a 10-core, 16-thread processor from the Core 13th Gen series, based on the Raptor Lake architecture with a Raptor Lake-S codename. It has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The process node is 10 nm from Intel, and the die size is 215 mm². The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode, but ECC memory is not supported. The PCIe interface is Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, and it does not have integrated graphics, hence the "F" suffix.

The benchmark scores reveal a CPU that performs exceptionally well in multi-threaded workloads. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22604 is a strong indicator for 3D rendering, video encoding, and scientific simulations. The PassMark multithread score of 25032 and Geekbench multicore of 11068 corroborate this. The 3DMark scores show excellent scaling from 2 threads (1880) to 16 threads (7314), with max threads at 7307, indicating efficient use of the 16 threads. The Cinebench R20 multicore of 8892 and R15 multicore of 2278 also support this trend.

Single-thread performance is adequate but not outstanding. The 3DMark single-thread score of 960, Cinebench R23 single-core of 3191, and PassMark single-thread of 3634 are respectable, placing it in the mid-range for daily tasks. The PassMark integer math score of 79942 and floating-point math of 60539 highlight its strength in number-crunching, while data compression (311364) and random string sorting (32076) show solid memory and cache efficiency. The find prime numbers score of 83 is low, suggesting it is not optimized for that specific workload, but this is an outlier. Overall, the CPU is a capable mid-range performer that excels when all cores are utilized, making it a good fit for content creation and productivity.

FAQ — 5-7 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data (format: Q: ... A: ...)

Q: What is the combined percentile of this CPU and GPU pairing?

A: The combined percentile is 72, which indicates the system outperforms 72% of other builds in the database.

Q: How does the Quadro RTX 5000 compare to the GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB in average benchmark scores?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 has an average benchmark score of 21629, which is 1% lower than the GTX 1060 6 GB’s score of 21856, as indicated by a deltaPct of -1%.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000?

A: The GPU has a memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s, with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-13400F support ECC memory?

A: No, the CPU does not support ECC memory, despite its workstation-oriented pairing with a Quadro GPU.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Intel Core i5-13400F?

A: The launch MSRP of the CPU is $196.

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score: the Intel Core i5-13400F or the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F scores 25292, while the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D scores 25365, making the Ryzen slightly higher by 0.3%.

Q: What are the power requirements for the Quadro RTX 5000?

A: The GPU has a TDP of 230 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W, with power connectors requiring 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin.

Who Should Build It — target users and industries (gamers at specific resolutions, content creators, developers, students, small business workstations) tied strictly to the measured performance

This build is suited for users who need strong CPU performance for multi-threaded tasks but do not require top-tier GPU power. Gamers at 1080p with moderate settings will find the Quadro RTX 5000’s G3D score of 15616 adequate, but those seeking 1440p or 4K ultra settings should look elsewhere, as the GPU’s DirectX 12 score of 59 indicates poor scalability. Content creators, particularly video editors and 3D artists, will benefit from the CPU’s Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22604 and the GPU’s 16 GB VRAM, which supports large timelines and scenes. Developers working on compilation tasks will appreciate the PassMark integer math score of 79942, while those doing machine learning can leverage the GPU’s 384 tensor cores and OpenCL score of 78999.

Students and office workers will find this system overkill, but the CPU’s PassMark single-thread score of 3634 ensures smooth multitasking. Small business workstations that run CPU-intensive applications like financial modeling or data analysis will see value in the CPU’s data compression score of 311364 and multithread score of 25032. The GPU’s professional features, such as 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and 16 GB VRAM, make it suitable for CAD and scientific visualization, though the 67th percentile GPU rank means it is not a high-end workstation card. The build is best for users who prioritize CPU performance and need a reliable, mid-range GPU for professional tasks rather than gaming.

Build Overview — what this CPU+GPU pairing is, its class (desktop/laptop from buildClass), and overall tier from the percentiles

This is a desktop-class build (buildClass: desktop) pairing the Intel Core i5-13400F with the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000. The CPU is a modern 13th-generation Raptor Lake processor with 10 cores and 16 threads, while the GPU is a Turing-architecture professional card with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory. The overall tier, based on the combined percentile of 72, places this system in the upper-middle range of all builds, outperforming the majority but not reaching the top tier. The CPU’s 77th percentile is notably higher than the GPU’s 67th percentile, indicating an imbalance where the CPU is the stronger component.

In practical terms, this pairing offers excellent multi-threaded CPU performance for productivity and content creation, but the GPU’s performance is closer to a mid-range gaming card than a high-end workstation solution. The 16 GB VRAM and tensor cores provide professional value, but the raw compute and gaming scores are modest. The build is best described as a workstation-oriented desktop that can handle CPU-heavy tasks with ease, while GPU-accelerated workloads are limited by the Quadro’s Turing architecture. For users upgrading from older systems, this provides a solid foundation, but the GPU may need to be replaced to unlock the CPU’s full potential in graphics-intensive applications.

Rate My PC: Intel Core i5-13400F + NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000

Power Build

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core i5-13400F

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000

Market Position

Game Performance Benchmarks

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

Performance Insights

Strong Performance

Performance Tiers Explained

Ultimate

High-End

Mid-Range

Entry Level

Legacy

GPU Analysis — VRAM, bandwidth, clocks, RT/tensor hardware, what the benchmark scores mean for rendering

Benchmark Performance — exact CPU and GPU scores, percentile positions, and what the combined picture is

Gaming Performance — measured FPS by game and resolution from measuredFpsUltraByGame (or, if dataIsMeasured is false, frame expectations qualitatively from the benchmark scores and say the figures are estimates)

Balance and Bottleneck — which component limits which workload, using percentiles and FPS scaling as evidence

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work. One short paragraph per scenario, citing the numbers that support the verdict

Upgrade Path and Platform — socket, memory support, PCIe, PSU headroom from suggestedPsu/tdp, what a sensible next upgrade looks like

CPU Analysis — cores, clocks, architecture, what the benchmark scores mean for real workloads

FAQ — 5-7 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data (format: Q: ... A: ...)

Who Should Build It — target users and industries (gamers at specific resolutions, content creators, developers, students, small business workstations) tied strictly to the measured performance

Build Overview — what this CPU+GPU pairing is, its class (desktop/laptop from buildClass), and overall tier from the percentiles

4K Gaming Performance

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

1440p Gaming Performance

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

1080p Gaming Performance

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

Related Processors

Related Graphics Cards

Compare Your CPU

Compare Your GPU

Related PC Builds

Same CPU with Different GPUs

Same GPU with Different CPUs

Other Popular Builds