Core i5-13400F vs Ryzen 9 7900

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 9 7900
2023
12 cores / 24 threads, 65 Watt
31.61
+93.8%

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms i5-13400F by an impressive 94% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 9 7900 and Core i5-13400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking116379
Place by popularitynot in top-10069
Cost-effectiveness evaluation65.8319.35
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Architecture codenameRaphael (Zen4)Raptor Lake-S
Release date14 January 2023 (1 year ago)4 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$196
Current price$498 $677 (3.5x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 9 7900 has 240% better value for money than i5-13400F.

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 9 7900 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 cores12 (Dodeca-Core)10 (Deca-Core)
Threads2416
Base clock speed3.7 GHz2.5 GHz
Boost clock speed5.4 GHz4.6 GHz
L1 cache64K (per core)80K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1.25 MB (per core)
L3 cache64 MB (shared)20 MB (shared)
Chip lithography5 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size2x 71 mm2257 mm2
Maximum core temperature95 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)47 °C72 °C
Number of transistors13,140 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplierYesNo

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 9 7900 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
SocketAM5FCLGA1700
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 9 7900 and Core i5-13400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions5 nm, 0.650 - 1.475VIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
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 9 7900 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 9 7900 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 9 7900 and Core i5-13400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5-5200DDR5, DDR4
Maximum memory sizeno data192 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data76.8 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon Graphics (Ryzen 7000)no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 9 7900 and Core i5-13400F.

PCIe version5.05.0 and 4.0
PCI Express lanes2420

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 9 7900 31.61
+93.8%
i5-13400F 16.31

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Core i5-13400F by 94% 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 9 7900 48885
+93.8%
i5-13400F 25220

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Core i5-13400F by 94% 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 9 7900 2836
+23.9%
i5-13400F 2289

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Core i5-13400F by 24% 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 9 7900 16846
+56.2%
i5-13400F 10783

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Core i5-13400F by 56% 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 9 7900 8339
i5-13400F 8689
+4.2%

Core i5-13400F outperforms Ryzen 9 7900 by 4% 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 9 7900 60934
+19.2%
i5-13400F 51113

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Core i5-13400F by 19% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

Ryzen 9 7900 19451
+39%
i5-13400F 13989

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Core i5-13400F by 39% in 3DMark06 CPU.

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 9 7900 2.98
+9.7%
i5-13400F 3.27

Core i5-13400F outperforms Ryzen 9 7900 by 10% 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 9 7900 45
+65%
i5-13400F 27

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Core i5-13400F by 65% 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 9 7900 4020
+70.1%
i5-13400F 2364

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Core i5-13400F by 70% 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 9 7900 315
+25%
i5-13400F 252

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Core i5-13400F by 25% 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 9 7900 3.68
+20.3%
i5-13400F 3.06

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Core i5-13400F by 20% 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 9 7900 21.5
+76.2%
i5-13400F 12.2

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Core i5-13400F by 76% 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 9 7900 10154
+18%
i5-13400F 8602

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Core i5-13400F by 18% 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 9 7900 207
+51.3%
i5-13400F 137

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Core i5-13400F by 51% 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 9 7900 356
+13%
i5-13400F 315

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Core i5-13400F by 13% in x264 encoding pass 1.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 31.61 16.31
Physical cores 12 10
Threads 24 16

The Ryzen 9 7900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-13400F in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 9 7900 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 9 7900
Ryzen 9 7900
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.


4.7 229 votes

Rate Ryzen 9 7900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 2666 votes

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 9 7900 or Core i5-13400F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.