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: +22.8% higher average FPS across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $893 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $1,089 MSRP).
✅Delivers 847.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 13.5 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $1,089 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 140W, a 75W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA2011 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Core i7-6900K

2016

Why buy it

✅100% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (7,591 vs 11,408).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.5 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($1,089 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌115.4% higher power demand at 140W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA2011 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Core i7-6900K

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +22.8% higher average FPS across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $893 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $1,089 MSRP).
✅Delivers 847.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 13.5 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $1,089 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 140W, a 75W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA2011 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅100% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (7,591 vs 11,408).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.5 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($1,089 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌115.4% higher power demand at 140W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA2011 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-13400F better than Core i7-6900K?

Yes. Core i5-13400F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 22.8% average FPS lead across 8 shared CPU game tests in our data, 50.3% better Geekbench multi-core, 70.5% higher 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 22.8% more average FPS across 8 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 50.3% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 10 cores and 16 threads.

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

Core i5-13400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-13400F is $893 cheaper on MSRP at $196 MSRP versus $1,089 MSRP, and it gives you a 22.8% average FPS lead across 8 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 847.2% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 13.5 PassMark/$), 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 2016), a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of LGA2011, and more multi-core headroom with 10 cores / 16 threads instead of 8/16. 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 i7-6900K Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core i7-6900K
1080p
low	171 FPS	173 FPS
medium	158 FPS	139 FPS
high	132 FPS	113 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	90 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	144 FPS
medium	123 FPS	113 FPS
high	99 FPS	90 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	71 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	66 FPS
medium	74 FPS	55 FPS
high	59 FPS	44 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	35 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core i7-6900K

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core i7-6900K
1080p
low	545 FPS	367 FPS
medium	464 FPS	329 FPS
high	389 FPS	274 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	230 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	329 FPS
medium	403 FPS	291 FPS
high	345 FPS	243 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	202 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	212 FPS
medium	247 FPS	189 FPS
high	231 FPS	168 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	138 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core i7-6900K

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core i7-6900K
1080p
low	530 FPS	367 FPS
medium	449 FPS	367 FPS
high	415 FPS	367 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	367 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	367 FPS
medium	422 FPS	367 FPS
high	382 FPS	367 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	367 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	367 FPS
medium	331 FPS	367 FPS
high	296 FPS	361 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	295 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core i7-6900K

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core i7-6900K
1080p
low	626 FPS	367 FPS
medium	626 FPS	367 FPS
high	626 FPS	367 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	367 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	367 FPS
medium	626 FPS	367 FPS
high	598 FPS	367 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	367 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	367 FPS
medium	492 FPS	367 FPS
high	439 FPS	367 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	367 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core i7-6900K

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Core i7-6900K

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 i7-6900K

The Core i7-6900K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 31 May 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell-E (2016) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 140 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 14,682 points. Launch price was $1,020.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Core i7-6900K offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Core i5-13400F has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 4 GHz on the Core i7-6900K — a 14% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Core i7-6900K uses Broadwell-E (2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Core i7-6900K's 14,682 — a 52.1% lead for the Core i5-13400F. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 1,273, a 61.6% lead for the Core i5-13400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 7,591 (40.2% advantage for the Core i5-13400F). Both processors carry 20 MB (total) of L3 cache.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core i7-6900K
Cores / Threads	10 / 16+25%	8 / 16
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+15%	4 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	3.2 GHz+28%
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	20 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)+400%	256 kB (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Broadwell-E (2016)
PassMark	25,029+70%	14,682
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211	—
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407+89%	1,273
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408+50%	7,591

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Core i7-6900K uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-13400F versus DDR4-2400 on the Core i7-6900K — 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 128 GB — 40% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 4 (Core i7-6900K). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 40 (Core i7-6900K) — the Core i7-6900K offers 20 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and X99 (Core i7-6900K).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core i7-6900K
Socket	LGA1700	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+67%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200+25%	DDR4-2400
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+50%	128 GB
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	20	40+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core i7-6900K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, Core i7-6900K targets High-End Desktop. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core i7-6900K
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Gaming	High-End Desktop

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the Core i7-6900K debuted at $1089. On MSRP ($196 vs $1089), the Core i5-13400F is $893 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 13.5 pts/$ for the Core i7-6900K — making the Core i5-13400F the 161.8% better value option.