i5-13400F vs i9-7900X

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i9-7900X
2017
10 cores / 20 threads, 140 Watt
13.76
Core i5-13400F
2023
10 cores / 16 threads, 65 Watt
16.45
+19.5%

Core i5-13400F outperforms Core i9-7900X by a significant 20% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i9-7900X and Core i5-13400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking556417
Place by popularitynot in top-10038
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.0457.79
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesCore i9 (Desktop)no data
Power efficiency8.9623.08
Architecture codenameSkylake (server) (2017−2019)Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)
Release date30 May 2017 (7 years ago)4 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999$196

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i5-13400F has 1801% better value for money than i9-7900X.

Detailed specifications

Core i9-7900X 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 cores10 (Deca-Core)10 (Deca-Core)
Threads2016
Base clock speed3.3 GHz2.5 GHz
Boost clock speed4.5 GHz4.6 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier33no data
L1 cache640 KB80K (per core)
L2 cache10 MB1.25 MB (per core)
L3 cache13.75 MB20 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nmIntel 7 nm
Die sizeno data257 mm2
Maximum core temperature95 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °C72 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Core i9-7900X 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketSocket R4FCLGA1700
Power consumption (TDP)140 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i9-7900X and Core i5-13400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology2.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
TSX++
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0+-
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Core i9-7900X and Core i5-13400F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDB++
Secure Keyno data+
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i9-7900X and Core i5-13400F are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-d++
VT-x++
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i9-7900X 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 channels42
Maximum memory bandwidth85.33 GB/s76.8 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/Ano data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i9-7900X and Core i5-13400F.

PCIe version3.05.0 and 4.0
PCI Express lanes4416

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.

i9-7900X 13.76
i5-13400F 16.45
+19.5%

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.

i9-7900X 21065
i5-13400F 25177
+19.5%

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.

i9-7900X 1439
i5-13400F 2299
+59.8%

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.

i9-7900X 8823
i5-13400F 10906
+23.6%

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.

i9-7900X 7287
i5-13400F 8689
+19.2%

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.

i9-7900X 49738
i5-13400F 51113
+2.8%

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.

i9-7900X 12678
i5-13400F 13989
+10.3%

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.

i9-7900X 2.91
+12.4%
i5-13400F 3.27

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.

i9-7900X 24
i5-13400F 27
+15%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

i9-7900X 2148
i5-13400F 2364
+10.1%

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.

i9-7900X 193
i5-13400F 252
+30.8%

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.

i9-7900X 2.2
i5-13400F 3.06
+39.1%

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.

i9-7900X 12.1
i5-13400F 12.2
+0.8%

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.  

i9-7900X 121
i5-13400F 137
+13.1%

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.  

i9-7900X 217
i5-13400F 315
+44.9%

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.

i9-7900X 5918
i5-13400F 8602
+45.4%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.76 16.45
Recency 30 May 2017 4 January 2023
Threads 20 16
Power consumption (TDP) 140 Watt 65 Watt

i9-7900X has 25% more threads.

i5-13400F, on the other hand, has a 19.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and 115.4% lower power consumption.

The Core i5-13400F is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i9-7900X in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i9-7900X 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.


Intel Core i9-7900X
Core i9-7900X
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.


4 212 votes

Rate Core i9-7900X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 3069 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 Core i9-7900X or Core i5-13400F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.