EPYC 4584PX vs i5-13400F

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i5-13400F
2023
10 cores / 16 threads, 65 Watt
15.84
EPYC 4584PX
2024
16 cores / 32 threads, 120 Watt
37.61
+137%

EPYC 4584PX outperforms Core i5-13400F by a whopping 137% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i5-13400F and EPYC 4584PX processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking43381
Place by popularity46not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation58.4154.11
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency22.9429.51
Architecture codenameRaptor Lake-S (2023−2024)Raphael (2023−2024)
Release date4 January 2023 (1 year ago)21 May 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$196$699

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i5-13400F has 8% better value for money than EPYC 4584PX.

Detailed specifications

Core i5-13400F and EPYC 4584PX basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores10 (Deca-Core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads1632
Base clock speed2.5 GHz4.2 GHz
Boost clock speed4.6 GHz5.7 GHz
L1 cache80K (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache1.25 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache20 MB (shared)128 MB (shared)
Chip lithographyIntel 7 nm5 nm
Die size257 mm22x 71 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °C47 °C
Number of transistorsno data17,840 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data

Compatibility

Information on Core i5-13400F and EPYC 4584PX compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11
SocketFCLGA1700AM5
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt120 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-13400F and EPYC 4584PX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0-no data
Precision Boost 2no data+
Deep Learning Boost+-

Security technologies

Core i5-13400F and EPYC 4584PX technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-13400F and EPYC 4584PX are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-13400F and EPYC 4584PX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5, DDR4DDR5
Maximum memory size192 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth76.8 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon Graphics

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-13400F and EPYC 4584PX.

PCIe version5.0 and 4.05.0
PCI Express lanes1628

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

i5-13400F 15.84
EPYC 4584PX 37.61
+137%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

i5-13400F 25159
EPYC 4584PX 59735
+137%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.84 37.61
Recency 4 January 2023 21 May 2024
Physical cores 10 16
Threads 16 32
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 120 Watt

i5-13400F has 84.6% lower power consumption.

EPYC 4584PX, on the other hand, has a 137.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 60% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

The EPYC 4584PX is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-13400F in performance tests.

Note that Core i5-13400F is a desktop processor while EPYC 4584PX is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-13400F and EPYC 4584PX, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core i5-13400F
Core i5-13400F
AMD EPYC 4584PX
EPYC 4584PX

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 3297 votes

Rate Core i5-13400F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 7 votes

Rate EPYC 4584PX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i5-13400F or EPYC 4584PX, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.