i7-4960X vs i5-13400
Aggregate performance score
Core i5-13400 outperforms Core i7-4960X by a whopping 130% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i5-13400 and Core i7-4960X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 485 | 1052 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 44.18 | 0.48 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | Intel Core i7 (Desktop) |
| Power efficiency | 21.24 | 4.62 |
| Architecture codename | Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) | Ivy Bridge-E (2013) |
| Release date | 4 January 2023 (1 year ago) | 3 September 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $221 | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
i5-13400 has 9104% better value for money than i7-4960X.
Detailed specifications
Core i5-13400 and Core i7-4960X 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 cores | 10 (Deca-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.6 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 80K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 20 MB (shared) | 15 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | Intel 7 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 257 mm2 | 257 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 67 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 72 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,860 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Core i5-13400 and Core i7-4960X 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 configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA1700 | FCLGA2011 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 130 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-13400 and Core i7-4960X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 | Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | + |
| TSX | + | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Smart Response | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | - | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | + | - |
Security technologies
Core i5-13400 and Core i7-4960X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | - |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| OS Guard | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-13400 and Core i7-4960X are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-13400 and Core i7-4960X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 192 GB | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel UHD Graphics 730 | no data |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.55 GHz | no data |
| Execution Units | 24 | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i5-13400 and Core i7-4960X integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 4 | no data |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Core i5-13400 and Core i7-4960X integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | 4096 x 2160 @ 60Hz | no data |
| Max resolution over eDP | 5120 x 3200 @ 120Hz | no data |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz | no data |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Core i5-13400 and Core i7-4960X integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | 12 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-13400 and Core i7-4960X.
| PCIe version | 5.0 and 4.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 40 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.14 | 6.58 |
| Recency | 4 January 2023 | 3 September 2013 |
| Physical cores | 10 | 6 |
| Threads | 16 | 12 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 130 Watt |
i5-13400 has a 130.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, 66.7% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads, and 100% lower power consumption.
The Core i5-13400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i7-4960X in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-13400 and Core i7-4960X, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
