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

✅+61.1% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Costs $254 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $450 MSRP).
✅Delivers 193.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 43.5 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $450 MSRP).
✅150% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 256V across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌282.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 17W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 256V can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core Ultra 7 256V

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +36.6% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 17W instead of 65W, a 48W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Graphics 140V, while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (10,065 vs 16,211).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 20 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 43.5 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($450 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Core Ultra 7 256V

2024

Why buy it

✅+61.1% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Costs $254 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $450 MSRP).
✅Delivers 193.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 43.5 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $450 MSRP).
✅150% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +36.6% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 17W instead of 65W, a 48W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Graphics 140V, while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 256V across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌282.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 17W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 256V can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (10,065 vs 16,211).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 20 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 43.5 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($450 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 7 256V better than Core i5-13400F?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Core Ultra 7 256V is ahead with a 36.6% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-13400F pulls ahead with 61.1% better Cinebench R23 multi-core. Core i5-13400F also has the bigger cache pool with 66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).

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 61.1% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 10 cores and 16 threads. It also carries 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 Ultra 7 256V is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-13400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core Ultra 7 256V is 129.6% more expensive on MSRP at $450 MSRP versus $196 MSRP, and it gives you a 36.6% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that Core i5-13400F is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 61.1% better Cinebench R23 multi-core. Core i5-13400F is also 193.5% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 43.5 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Core Ultra 7 256V is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2023). 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 Ultra 7 256V Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 256V
1080p
low	171 FPS	272 FPS
medium	158 FPS	243 FPS
high	132 FPS	205 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	176 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	230 FPS
medium	123 FPS	185 FPS
high	99 FPS	152 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	134 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	161 FPS
medium	74 FPS	130 FPS
high	59 FPS	101 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	89 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core Ultra 7 256V

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 256V
1080p
low	545 FPS	214 FPS
medium	464 FPS	179 FPS
high	389 FPS	161 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	142 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	182 FPS
medium	403 FPS	157 FPS
high	345 FPS	145 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	125 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	139 FPS
medium	247 FPS	124 FPS
high	231 FPS	117 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	102 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core Ultra 7 256V

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 256V
1080p
low	530 FPS	489 FPS
medium	449 FPS	489 FPS
high	415 FPS	489 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	489 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	489 FPS
medium	422 FPS	489 FPS
high	382 FPS	489 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	468 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	489 FPS
medium	331 FPS	462 FPS
high	296 FPS	404 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	336 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core Ultra 7 256V

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 256V
1080p
low	626 FPS	489 FPS
medium	626 FPS	489 FPS
high	626 FPS	489 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	489 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	489 FPS
medium	626 FPS	489 FPS
high	598 FPS	489 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	489 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	489 FPS
medium	492 FPS	489 FPS
high	439 FPS	480 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	418 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core Ultra 7 256V

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Core Ultra 7 256V

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 Ultra 7 256V

The Core Ultra 7 256V 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: 19,579 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 256V offers 8 cores / 8 threads — the Core i5-13400F has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 4.8 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 256V — a 4.3% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 256V (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 Ultra 7 256V uses Lunar Lake (2024) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Core Ultra 7 256V's 19,579 — a 24.4% lead for the Core i5-13400F. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 16,211 vs 10,065 (46.8% advantage for the Core i5-13400F). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 2,658, a 9.9% lead for the Core Ultra 7 256V that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 11,000 (3.6% advantage for the Core i5-13400F). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 12 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 256V.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 256V
Cores / Threads	10 / 16+25%	8 / 8
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz	4.8 GHz+4%
Base Clock	2.5 GHz+14%	2.2 GHz
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)+67%	12 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)	2.5 MB (per core)+100%
Process	Intel 7 nm	3 nm-57%
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Lunar Lake (2024)
PassMark	25,029+28%	19,579
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211+61%	10,065
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407	2,658+10%
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408+4%	11,000

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Core Ultra 7 256V uses FCBGA2833 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-13400F versus LPDDR5x 8533 MT/s on the Core Ultra 7 256V — the Core Ultra 7 256V supports 200% 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 16 GB — 169.2% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 8 (Core Ultra 7 256V) — the Core i5-13400F offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and Lunar Lake (Core Ultra 7 256V).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 256V
Socket	LGA1700	FCBGA2833
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	LPDDR5x 8533 MT/s
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+1100%	16 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	20+150%	8

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F) vs true (Core Ultra 7 256V). The Core Ultra 7 256V includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Graphics 140V), while the Core i5-13400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, Core Ultra 7 256V targets Mobile. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 256V
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	Intel Arc Graphics 140V
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	true
Target Use	Gaming	Mobile

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the Core Ultra 7 256V debuted at $450. On MSRP ($196 vs $450), the Core i5-13400F is $254 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 43.5 pts/$ for the Core Ultra 7 256V — making the Core i5-13400F the 98.3% better value option.