Core i5-13400F vs Ryzen 7 3800XT

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 7 3800XT
2020
8 cores / 16 threads, 105 Watt
15.27
Core i5-13400F
2023
10 cores / 16 threads, 65 Watt
16.30
+6.7%

Core i5-13400F outperforms Ryzen 7 3800XT by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 7 3800XT and Core i5-13400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking421375
Place by popularitynot in top-10069
Cost-effectiveness evaluation26.4612.47
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Ryzen 7no data
Architecture codenameMatisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020)Raptor Lake-S
Release date7 July 2020 (3 years ago)4 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399$196
Current price$398 (1x MSRP)$1066 (5.4x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 7 3800XT has 112% better value for money than i5-13400F.

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 7 3800XT and Core i5-13400F 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)10 (Deca-Core)
Threads1616
Base clock speed3.8 GHz2.5 GHz
Boost clock speed4.7 GHz4.6 GHz
L1 cache96K (per core)80K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)1.25 MB (per core)
L3 cache32 MB20 MB (shared)
Chip lithography7 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size74 mm2257 mm2
Maximum core temperature95 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)95 °C72 °C
Number of transistors3,800 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplierYesNo

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 7 3800XT and Core i5-13400F 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
SocketAM4FCLGA1700
Power consumption (TDP)105 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 3800XT and Core i5-13400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsDDR4-3200 RAM, PCIe 4, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SMEIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
FMA+no data
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
TSXno data+
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoringno data+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-
Statusno dataLaunched

Security technologies

Ryzen 7 3800XT and Core i5-13400F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 3800XT and Core i5-13400F are enumerated here.

AMD-V+no data
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 3800XT and Core i5-13400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR5, DDR4
Maximum memory size128 GB192 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth51.196 GB/s76.8 GB/s
ECC memory support-no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 3800XT and Core i5-13400F.

PCIe version4.05.0 and 4.0
PCI Express lanesno data20

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.

Ryzen 7 3800XT 15.27
i5-13400F 16.30
+6.7%

Core i5-13400F outperforms Ryzen 7 3800XT by 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

Ryzen 7 3800XT 23622
i5-13400F 25213
+6.7%

Core i5-13400F outperforms Ryzen 7 3800XT by 7% in Passmark.

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

Ryzen 7 3800XT 1759
i5-13400F 2291
+30.2%

Core i5-13400F outperforms Ryzen 7 3800XT by 30% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

Ryzen 7 3800XT 8472
i5-13400F 10785
+27.3%

Core i5-13400F outperforms Ryzen 7 3800XT by 27% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

Ryzen 7 3800XT 6035
i5-13400F 8689
+44%

Core i5-13400F outperforms Ryzen 7 3800XT by 44% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

Ryzen 7 3800XT 40528
i5-13400F 51113
+26.1%

Core i5-13400F outperforms Ryzen 7 3800XT by 26% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

Ryzen 7 3800XT 3.74
i5-13400F 3.27
+14.4%

Ryzen 7 3800XT outperforms Core i5-13400F by 14% in wPrime 32.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

Ryzen 7 3800XT 24
i5-13400F 27
+13.6%

Core i5-13400F outperforms Ryzen 7 3800XT by 14% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

Ryzen 7 3800XT 2230
i5-13400F 2364
+6%

Core i5-13400F outperforms Ryzen 7 3800XT by 6% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

Ryzen 7 3800XT 219
i5-13400F 252
+15.1%

Core i5-13400F outperforms Ryzen 7 3800XT by 15% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

Ryzen 7 3800XT 2.36
i5-13400F 3.06
+29.7%

Core i5-13400F outperforms Ryzen 7 3800XT by 30% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Ryzen 7 3800XT 11.4
i5-13400F 12.2
+7%

Core i5-13400F outperforms Ryzen 7 3800XT by 7% in TrueCrypt AES.

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Ryzen 7 3800XT 7467
i5-13400F 8602
+15.2%

Core i5-13400F outperforms Ryzen 7 3800XT by 15% in WinRAR 4.0.

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Ryzen 7 3800XT 119
i5-13400F 137
+15%

Core i5-13400F outperforms Ryzen 7 3800XT by 15% in x264 encoding pass 2.

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Ryzen 7 3800XT 271
i5-13400F 315
+16.1%

Core i5-13400F outperforms Ryzen 7 3800XT by 16% in x264 encoding pass 1.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.27 16.30
Recency 7 July 2020 4 January 2023
Physical cores 8 10
Cost $399 $196
Power consumption (TDP) 105 Watt 65 Watt

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Ryzen 7 3800XT and Core i5-13400F.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 7 3800XT and Core i5-13400F, 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.


AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT
Ryzen 7 3800XT
Intel Core i5-13400F
Core i5-13400F

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.


4.4 273 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 3800XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 2621 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 7 3800XT or Core i5-13400F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.