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

✅Costs $188 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $384 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 7 265.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265 across 10 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 49,666).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 30 MB).
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 265 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core Ultra 7 265

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +27.6% higher average FPS across 10 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 20 MB).
✅20% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Graphics, while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌
95.9% HIGHER MSRP
$384 MSRPvs$196 MSRP
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Core Ultra 7 265

2025

Why buy it

✅Costs $188 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $384 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 7 265.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +27.6% higher average FPS across 10 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 20 MB).
✅20% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Graphics, while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265 across 10 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 49,666).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 30 MB).
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 265 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌
95.9% HIGHER MSRP
$384 MSRPvs$196 MSRP
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 7 265 better than Core i5-13400F?

Yes. Core Ultra 7 265 is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 27.6% average FPS lead across 10 shared CPU game tests in our data, 98.4% 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 Ultra 7 265 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 27.6% more average FPS across 10 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 7 265 is the better fit. You are getting 98.4% better PassMark, backed by 20 cores and 20 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 20 MB).

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

Core Ultra 7 265 is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 7 265 is 95.9% more expensive on MSRP at $384 MSRP versus $196 MSRP, and it gives you a 27.6% average FPS lead across 10 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 1.3% better value on MSRP (129.3 vs 127.7 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper. That said, if you already own a compatible LGA1700 + DDR5 setup, Core i5-13400F can still make sense as a platform-matched option because it avoids a motherboard and RAM swap.

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

Core Ultra 7 265 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2023), 50% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 20 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 20 cores / 20 threads instead of 10/16. 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 Ultra 7 265 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 265
1080p
low	171 FPS	280 FPS
medium	158 FPS	273 FPS
high	132 FPS	227 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	191 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	226 FPS
medium	123 FPS	194 FPS
high	99 FPS	155 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	135 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	151 FPS
medium	74 FPS	129 FPS
high	59 FPS	99 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	87 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core Ultra 7 265

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 265
1080p
low	545 FPS	695 FPS
medium	464 FPS	593 FPS
high	389 FPS	498 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	448 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	605 FPS
medium	403 FPS	539 FPS
high	345 FPS	452 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	384 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	356 FPS
medium	247 FPS	324 FPS
high	231 FPS	305 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	266 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core Ultra 7 265

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 265
1080p
low	530 FPS	839 FPS
medium	449 FPS	685 FPS
high	415 FPS	610 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	522 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	727 FPS
medium	422 FPS	596 FPS
high	382 FPS	519 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	441 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	515 FPS
medium	331 FPS	434 FPS
high	296 FPS	394 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	336 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core Ultra 7 265

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 265
1080p
low	626 FPS	995 FPS
medium	626 FPS	901 FPS
high	626 FPS	782 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	709 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	814 FPS
medium	626 FPS	724 FPS
high	598 FPS	627 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	555 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	555 FPS
medium	492 FPS	501 FPS
high	439 FPS	449 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	396 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core Ultra 7 265

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Core Ultra 7 265

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 7 265

The Core Ultra 7 265 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 7 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 20 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 5.3 GHz. L3 cache: 30 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 49,666 points. Launch price was $394.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265 offers 20 cores / 20 threads — the Core Ultra 7 265 has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265 — a 14.1% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265 (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Core Ultra 7 265 uses Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Core Ultra 7 265's 49,666 — a 66% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 265.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 265
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	20 / 20+100%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz	5.3 GHz+15%
Base Clock	2.5 GHz+4%	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	30 MB (total)+50%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)	3 MB (per core)+140%
Process	Intel 7 nm	3 nm-57%
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
PassMark	25,029	49,666+98%
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 Ultra 7 265 uses LGA1851 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-13400F versus 6400 on the Core Ultra 7 265 — the Core Ultra 7 265 supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core Ultra 7 265 supports up to 256 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 28.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 24 (Core Ultra 7 265) — the Core Ultra 7 265 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and Z890,B860 (Core Ultra 7 265).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 265
Socket	LGA1700	LGA1851
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	6400+127900%
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+78643100%	256
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	24+20%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Core Ultra 7 265 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core Ultra 7 265 includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc 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 Ultra 7 265 rivals Ryzen 7 9700X.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 265
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	Intel Arc Graphics
Unlocked	No	No
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 Ultra 7 265 debuted at $384. On MSRP ($196 vs $384), the Core i5-13400F is $188 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 129.3 pts/$ for the Core Ultra 7 265 — making the Core Ultra 7 265 the 1.3% better value option.