Key Differences
In short — Core i5-13400F outperforms the cheaper FX-8150 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing FX-8150 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i5-13400F is 4102 days newer than the cheaper FX-8150.
Advantages of AMD FX-8150
- Up to 91% cheaper than Core i5-13400F - $59.97 vs $658.06
- Up to 89% better value when playing Elden Ring than Core i5-13400F - $0.61 vs $5.58 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i5-13400F
- Performs up to 19% better in Elden Ring than FX-8150 - 131 vs 110 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8150 - 16 vs 8 threads
Elden Ring
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
FPS
110
83.96946564885496%
Value, €/FPS
€0.61/FPS
100%
Price, €
€66.57
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €66.57 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 44093 minutes ago
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
FPS
131
100%
Value, €/FPS
€5.58/FPS
10.93189964157706%
Price, €
€730.45
9%
FPS Winner
Buy for €730.45 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 44092 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8150 | vs | Intel Core i5-13400F |
---|---|---|
Oct 12th, 2011 | Release Date | Jan 4th, 2023 |
FX | Collection | Core i5 |
Zambezi | Codename | Raptor Lake |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 10 |
8 | Threads | 16 |
3.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.5 GHz |
3.9 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.6 GHz |
125 W | TDP | Not Available |
32 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
18.0x | Multiplier | 25.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |