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 i5-13400F

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +173.0% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+150% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Costs $182 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $378 MSRP).
✅Delivers 587.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 18.6 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $378 MSRP).
✅25% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌44.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 45W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-6820EQ can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i7-6820EQ

2015

Why buy it

✅Draws 45W instead of 65W, a 20W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 530, while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (7,025 vs 25,029).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 20 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 18.6 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($378 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Core i7-6820EQ

2015

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +173.0% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+150% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Costs $182 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $378 MSRP).
✅Delivers 587.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 18.6 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $378 MSRP).
✅25% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Draws 45W instead of 65W, a 20W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 530, while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌44.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 45W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-6820EQ can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (7,025 vs 25,029).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 20 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 18.6 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($378 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-13400F better than Core i7-6820EQ?

Yes. Core i5-13400F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 173.0% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data, 256.3% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i5-13400F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 173.0% more average FPS across 4 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 better fit. You are getting 256.3% better PassMark, backed by 10 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 150% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 8 MB).

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

Core i5-13400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-13400F is $182 cheaper on MSRP at $196 MSRP versus $378 MSRP, and it gives you a 173.0% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 587.1% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 18.6 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

Core i5-13400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2015), a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of the older platform, 150% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 8 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 10 cores / 16 threads instead of 4/8. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

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.

Core i5-13400F Benchmark Check

Core i7-6820EQ Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core i7-6820EQ
1080p
low	171 FPS	164 FPS
medium	158 FPS	130 FPS
high	132 FPS	103 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	80 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	141 FPS
medium	123 FPS	111 FPS
high	99 FPS	86 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	67 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	66 FPS
medium	74 FPS	56 FPS
high	59 FPS	43 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	34 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core i7-6820EQ

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core i7-6820EQ
1080p
low	545 FPS	176 FPS
medium	464 FPS	153 FPS
high	389 FPS	142 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	106 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	154 FPS
medium	403 FPS	133 FPS
high	345 FPS	122 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	95 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	121 FPS
medium	247 FPS	108 FPS
high	231 FPS	84 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	60 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core i7-6820EQ

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core i7-6820EQ
1080p
low	530 FPS	176 FPS
medium	449 FPS	176 FPS
high	415 FPS	176 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	176 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	176 FPS
medium	422 FPS	176 FPS
high	382 FPS	176 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	176 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	176 FPS
medium	331 FPS	176 FPS
high	296 FPS	176 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	176 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core i7-6820EQ

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core i7-6820EQ
1080p
low	626 FPS	176 FPS
medium	626 FPS	176 FPS
high	626 FPS	176 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	176 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	176 FPS
medium	626 FPS	176 FPS
high	598 FPS	176 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	176 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	176 FPS
medium	492 FPS	176 FPS
high	439 FPS	176 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	176 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core i7-6820EQ

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Core i7-6820EQ

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.

Core i7-6820EQ

The Core i7-6820EQ is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 12 October 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Max frequency: 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Memory support: LPDDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 7,025 points. Launch price was $378.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Core i7-6820EQ offers 4 cores / 8 threads — the Core i5-13400F has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 2.8 GHz on the Core i7-6820EQ — a 48.6% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F. The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Core i7-6820EQ uses Skylake (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Core i7-6820EQ's 7,025 — a 112.3% lead for the Core i5-13400F. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 8 MB on the Core i7-6820EQ.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core i7-6820EQ
Cores / Threads	10 / 16+150%	4 / 8
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+64%	2.8 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	—
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)+150%	8 MB
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)+25%	1 MB
Process	Intel 7 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Skylake (2015−2016)
PassMark	25,029+256%	7,025
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211	—
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-13400F versus DDR4-2133 on the Core i7-6820EQ — the Core i5-13400F supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i5-13400F supports up to 192 GB of RAM compared to 64 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 16 (Core i7-6820EQ) — the Core i5-13400F offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core i7-6820EQ
Socket	LGA1700	—
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+67%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200+25%	DDR4-2133
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+200%	64 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	20+25%	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core i7-6820EQ includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 530), while the Core i5-13400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, Core i7-6820EQ targets Embedded. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core i7-6820EQ
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	HD Graphics 530
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Gaming	Embedded

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the Core i7-6820EQ debuted at $378. On MSRP ($196 vs $378), the Core i5-13400F is $182 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 18.6 pts/$ for the Core i7-6820EQ — making the Core i5-13400F the 149.2% better value option.