
Core i5-12400F
Popular choices:

Core Ultra 7 258V
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
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.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.
Core i5-12400F
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +28.1% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+50% larger total L3 cache (18 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Costs $276 less on MSRP ($174 MSRP vs $450 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 166.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 112.3 vs 42.1 PassMark/$ ($174 MSRP vs $450 MSRP).
- ✅150% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌282.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 17W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 258V can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Core Ultra 7 258V
2024Why buy it
- ✅Draws 17W instead of 65W, a 48W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with Arc 140V, while Core i5-12400F needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-12400F across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (10,000 vs 12,380).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 18 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 42.1 vs 112.3 PassMark/$ ($450 MSRP vs $174 MSRP).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-12400F.
Core i5-12400F
2022Core Ultra 7 258V
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +28.1% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+50% larger total L3 cache (18 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Costs $276 less on MSRP ($174 MSRP vs $450 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 166.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 112.3 vs 42.1 PassMark/$ ($174 MSRP vs $450 MSRP).
- ✅150% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Why buy it
- ✅Draws 17W instead of 65W, a 48W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with Arc 140V, while Core i5-12400F needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌282.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 17W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 258V can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-12400F across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (10,000 vs 12,380).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 18 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 42.1 vs 112.3 PassMark/$ ($450 MSRP vs $174 MSRP).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-12400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i5-12400F better than Core Ultra 7 258V?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core i5-12400F | Core Ultra 7 258V |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 183 FPS | 272 FPS |
| medium | 168 FPS | 243 FPS |
| high | 139 FPS | 205 FPS |
| ultra | 119 FPS | 176 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 230 FPS |
| medium | 132 FPS | 185 FPS |
| high | 106 FPS | 152 FPS |
| ultra | 89 FPS | 134 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 161 FPS |
| medium | 81 FPS | 130 FPS |
| high | 64 FPS | 101 FPS |
| ultra | 49 FPS | 89 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-12400F | Core Ultra 7 258V |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 471 FPS | 217 FPS |
| medium | 397 FPS | 179 FPS |
| high | 341 FPS | 161 FPS |
| ultra | 301 FPS | 142 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 407 FPS | 184 FPS |
| medium | 351 FPS | 157 FPS |
| high | 309 FPS | 145 FPS |
| ultra | 265 FPS | 125 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 282 FPS | 141 FPS |
| medium | 248 FPS | 124 FPS |
| high | 229 FPS | 117 FPS |
| ultra | 196 FPS | 102 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-12400F | Core Ultra 7 258V |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 474 FPS |
| medium | 488 FPS | 474 FPS |
| high | 488 FPS | 474 FPS |
| ultra | 488 FPS | 474 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 474 FPS |
| medium | 488 FPS | 474 FPS |
| high | 485 FPS | 474 FPS |
| ultra | 434 FPS | 468 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 442 FPS | 474 FPS |
| medium | 389 FPS | 462 FPS |
| high | 337 FPS | 404 FPS |
| ultra | 274 FPS | 336 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-12400F | Core Ultra 7 258V |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 474 FPS |
| medium | 488 FPS | 474 FPS |
| high | 488 FPS | 474 FPS |
| ultra | 488 FPS | 474 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 474 FPS |
| medium | 488 FPS | 474 FPS |
| high | 488 FPS | 474 FPS |
| ultra | 473 FPS | 474 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 474 FPS |
| medium | 450 FPS | 474 FPS |
| high | 391 FPS | 474 FPS |
| ultra | 330 FPS | 418 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-12400F and Core Ultra 7 258V

Core i5-12400F
Core i5-12400F
The Core i5-12400F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 18 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: DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 19,532 points. Launch price was $180.

Core Ultra 7 258V
Core Ultra 7 258V
The Core Ultra 7 258V is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 September 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Lunar Lake (2024) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 2.5 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2833. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 18,947 points. Launch price was $299.
Processing Power
The Core i5-12400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 258V offers 8 cores / 8 threads — the Core Ultra 7 258V has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the Core i5-12400F versus 4.8 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 258V — a 8.7% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 258V (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The Core i5-12400F uses the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Core Ultra 7 258V uses Lunar Lake (2024) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-12400F scores 19,532 against the Core Ultra 7 258V's 18,947 — a 3% lead for the Core i5-12400F. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 12,380 vs 10,000 (21.3% advantage for the Core i5-12400F). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,700 vs 2,750, a 47.2% lead for the Core Ultra 7 258V that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 657 vs 11,000 (177.5% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 258V). L3 cache: 18 MB (total) on the Core i5-12400F vs 12 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 258V.
| Feature | Core i5-12400F | Core Ultra 7 258V |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 8 / 8+33% |
| Boost Clock | 4.4 GHz | 4.8 GHz+9% |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz+14% | 2.2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 18 MB (total)+50% | 12 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core)+100% |
| Process | Intel 7 nm | 3 nm-57% |
| Architecture | Alder Lake-S (2022) | Lunar Lake (2024) |
| PassMark | 19,532+3% | 18,947 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 12,380+24% | 10,000 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,700 | 2,750+62% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 657 | 11,000+1574% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-12400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core Ultra 7 258V uses FCBGA2833 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 memory speed. The Core i5-12400F supports up to 128 GB of RAM compared to 32 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-12400F) vs 8 (Core Ultra 7 258V) — the Core i5-12400F offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-12400F) and Lunar Lake (Core Ultra 7 258V).
| Feature | Core i5-12400F | Core Ultra 7 258V |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | FCBGA2833 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 | LPDDR5X-8533 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB+300% | 32 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | No |
| PCIe Lanes | 20+150% | 8 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i5-12400F) vs VT-x, VT-d (Core Ultra 7 258V). The Core Ultra 7 258V includes integrated graphics (Arc 140V), while the Core i5-12400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-12400F targets Gaming Performance/Value, Core Ultra 7 258V targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-12400F rivals Ryzen 5 5600; Core Ultra 7 258V rivals Ryzen 7 8840U.
| Feature | Core i5-12400F | Core Ultra 7 258V |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Arc 140V |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d, EPT | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | Gaming Performance/Value | Gaming |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-12400F launched at $174 MSRP, while the Core Ultra 7 258V debuted at $450. On MSRP ($174 vs $450), the Core i5-12400F is $276 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-12400F delivers 112.3 pts/$ vs 42.1 pts/$ for the Core Ultra 7 258V — making the Core i5-12400F the 90.9% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-12400F | Core Ultra 7 258V |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $174-61% | $450 |
| Performance per Dollar | 112.3+167% | 42.1 |
| Release Date | 2022 | 2024 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












