
Core i5-13400F
Popular choices:

Core i9-13950HX
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 i5-13400F
2023Why buy it
- ✅Costs $394 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $590 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 83.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 69.5 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $590 MSRP).
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-13950HX.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-13950HX across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 41,012).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 36 MB).
- ❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core i9-13950HX can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Core i9-13950HX
2023Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +15.2% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+80% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 20 MB).
- ✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel UHD Graphics, while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 69.5 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($590 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.
Core i5-13400F
2023Core i9-13950HX
2023Why buy it
- ✅Costs $394 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $590 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 83.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 69.5 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $590 MSRP).
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-13950HX.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +15.2% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+80% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 20 MB).
- ✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel UHD Graphics, while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-13950HX across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 41,012).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 36 MB).
- ❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core i9-13950HX can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 69.5 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($590 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i9-13950HX better than Core i5-13400F?
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 i5-13400F | Core i9-13950HX |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 171 FPS | 321 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 311 FPS |
| high | 132 FPS | 247 FPS |
| ultra | 112 FPS | 209 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 143 FPS | 278 FPS |
| medium | 123 FPS | 240 FPS |
| high | 99 FPS | 178 FPS |
| ultra | 84 FPS | 158 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 81 FPS | 192 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 164 FPS |
| high | 59 FPS | 123 FPS |
| ultra | 46 FPS | 112 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Core i9-13950HX |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 545 FPS | 497 FPS |
| medium | 464 FPS | 434 FPS |
| high | 389 FPS | 354 FPS |
| ultra | 356 FPS | 313 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 458 FPS | 422 FPS |
| medium | 403 FPS | 380 FPS |
| high | 345 FPS | 316 FPS |
| ultra | 301 FPS | 257 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 280 FPS | 236 FPS |
| medium | 247 FPS | 216 FPS |
| high | 231 FPS | 205 FPS |
| ultra | 204 FPS | 179 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Core i9-13950HX |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 530 FPS | 762 FPS |
| medium | 449 FPS | 626 FPS |
| high | 415 FPS | 543 FPS |
| ultra | 375 FPS | 467 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 490 FPS | 680 FPS |
| medium | 422 FPS | 567 FPS |
| high | 382 FPS | 485 FPS |
| ultra | 343 FPS | 423 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 393 FPS | 497 FPS |
| medium | 331 FPS | 430 FPS |
| high | 296 FPS | 383 FPS |
| ultra | 246 FPS | 329 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Core i9-13950HX |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 1010 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 905 FPS |
| high | 626 FPS | 792 FPS |
| ultra | 626 FPS | 704 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 838 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 739 FPS |
| high | 598 FPS | 646 FPS |
| ultra | 521 FPS | 568 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 535 FPS | 619 FPS |
| medium | 492 FPS | 555 FPS |
| high | 439 FPS | 491 FPS |
| ultra | 382 FPS | 430 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Core i9-13950HX

Core i5-13400F
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 i9-13950HX
Core i9-13950HX
The Core i9-13950HX is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Raptor Lake-HX (2023) architecture. It features 24 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 5.5 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1964. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR4, DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 41,012 points. Launch price was $590.
Processing Power
The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Core i9-13950HX offers 24 cores / 32 threads — the Core i9-13950HX has 14 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 5.5 GHz on the Core i9-13950HX — a 17.8% clock advantage for the Core i9-13950HX (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Core i9-13950HX uses Raptor Lake-HX (2023) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Core i9-13950HX's 41,012 — a 48.4% lead for the Core i9-13950HX. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 36 MB (total) on the Core i9-13950HX.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core i9-13950HX |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 10 / 16 | 24 / 32+140% |
| Boost Clock | 4.6 GHz | 5.5 GHz+20% |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz+14% | 2.2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 20 MB (total) | 36 MB (total)+80% |
| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core)+60% |
| Process | Intel 7 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Architecture | Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) | Raptor Lake-HX (2023) |
| PassMark | 25,029 | 41,012+64% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 16,211 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,407 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 11,408 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Core i9-13950HX uses FCBGA1964 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-13400F versus 5600 on the Core i9-13950HX — the Core i9-13950HX supports 199.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 192 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 20 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and Raptor Lake-HX (Core i9-13950HX).
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core i9-13950HX |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | FCBGA1964 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 | 5600+111900% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 192 GB+104857500% | 192 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 20 | 20 |
Advanced Features
Only the Core i9-13950HX has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the Core i9-13950HX supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core i9-13950HX includes integrated graphics (Intel UHD Graphics), while the Core i5-13400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; Core i9-13950HX rivals M3 Max 16-Core.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core i9-13950HX |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel UHD Graphics |
| Unlocked | No | Yes |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | Gaming | — |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the Core i9-13950HX debuted at $590. On MSRP ($196 vs $590), the Core i5-13400F is $394 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 69.5 pts/$ for the Core i9-13950HX — making the Core i5-13400F the 59% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core i9-13950HX |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $196-67% | $590 |
| Performance per Dollar | 127.7+84% | 69.5 |
| Release Date | 2023 | 2023 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













