EPYC 7713P vs i5-9400F

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i5-9400F
2019
6 cores / 6 threads, 65 Watt
6.19
EPYC 7713P
2021
64 cores / 128 threads, 225 Watt
53.06
+757%

EPYC 7713P outperforms Core i5-9400F by a whopping 757% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i5-9400F and EPYC 7713P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking109131
Place by popularity25not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.236.72
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesIntel Core i5AMD EPYC
Power efficiency8.6821.50
Architecture codenameCoffee Lake-R (2018−2019)Milan (2021−2023)
Release date7 January 2019 (5 years ago)12 January 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$182$5,010

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i5-9400F has 37% better value for money than EPYC 7713P.

Detailed specifications

Core i5-9400F and EPYC 7713P 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)
Threads6128
Base clock speed2.9 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed4.1 GHz3.68 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier2920
L1 cache385 KB4 MB
L2 cache1.5 MB32 MB
L3 cache9 MB (shared)256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm+
Die size149 mm28x 81 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data33,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++

Compatibility

Information on Core i5-9400F and EPYC 7713P 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketFCLGA1151SP3
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt225 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-9400F and EPYC 7713P. 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
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-

Security technologies

Core i5-9400F and EPYC 7713P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
MPX+-
Identity Protection+-
SGXYes with Intel® MEno data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-9400F and EPYC 7713P 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 i5-9400F and EPYC 7713P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2666DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size128 GB4 TiB
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/s204.795 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-9400F and EPYC 7713P.

PCIe version3.04.0
PCI Express lanes16128

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.

i5-9400F 6.19
EPYC 7713P 53.06
+757%

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.

i5-9400F 9469
EPYC 7713P 81201
+758%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.19 53.06
Recency 7 January 2019 12 January 2021
Physical cores 6 64
Threads 6 128
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 225 Watt

i5-9400F has 246.2% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7713P, on the other hand, has a 757.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 966.7% more physical cores and 2033.3% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7713P is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-9400F in performance tests.

Note that Core i5-9400F is a desktop processor while EPYC 7713P is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-9400F and EPYC 7713P, 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 i5-9400F
Core i5-9400F
AMD EPYC 7713P
EPYC 7713P

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.


4.9 56572 votes

Rate Core i5-9400F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 5 votes

Rate EPYC 7713P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i5-9400F or EPYC 7713P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.