Core 7 160UL vs Core i5-13400F

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Core 7 160UL vs Core i5-13400F FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core 7 160UL vs Core i5-13400F: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core 7 160UL

2024

Why buy it

✅Draws 15W instead of 65W, a 50W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (11,043 vs 25,029).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 20 MB).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +14.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core 7 160UL.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $196 MSRP, while Core 7 160UL mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌333.3% higher power demand at 65W vs 15W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-13400F better than Core 7 160UL?

Yes. Core i5-13400F is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 14.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 126.7% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i5-13400F is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 14.3% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-13400F is the stronger fit. You are getting 126.7% better PassMark, backed by 10 cores and 16 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core i5-13400F is the better buy right now. Core i5-13400F comes in at an unclear MSRP at $196 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 14.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core 7 160UL makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2023). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core 7 160UL vs Core i5-13400F Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core 7 160UL

The Core 7 160UL is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 8 April 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Raptor Lake-PS (2024) architecture. It features 10 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 5.2 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR4, DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 11,043 points. Launch price was $149.

Core i5-13400F

The Core i5-13400F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture. It features 10 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.6 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 25,029 points. Launch price was $196.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core 7 160UL packs 10 cores / 12 threads, matching the Core i5-13400F's 10 cores. Boost clocks reach 5.2 GHz on the Core 7 160UL versus 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F — a 12.2% clock advantage for the Core 7 160UL (base: 1.8 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core 7 160UL uses the Raptor Lake-PS (2024) architecture (10 nm), while the Core i5-13400F uses Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the Core 7 160UL scores 11,043 against the Core i5-13400F's 25,029 — a 77.5% lead for the Core i5-13400F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core 7 160UL vs 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F.

Feature	Core 7 160UL	Core i5-13400F
Cores / Threads	10 / 12	10 / 16
Boost Clock	5.2 GHz+13%	4.6 GHz
Base Clock	1.8 GHz	2.5 GHz+39%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	20 MB (total)+67%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)	1.25 MB (per core)
Process	10 nm	Intel 7 nm-30%
Architecture	Raptor Lake-PS (2024)	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)
PassMark	11,043	25,029+127%
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	16,211
Geekbench 6 Single	—	2,407
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	11,408

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the LGA1700 socket with PCIe 5.0.

Feature	Core 7 160UL	Core i5-13400F
Socket	LGA1700	LGA1700
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200
Max RAM Capacity	—	192 GB
RAM Channels	—	2
ECC Support	—	No
PCIe Lanes	—	20

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Core 7 160UL) / VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.