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.

Core i5-13400F vs Core Ultra 7 265 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core i5-13400F vs Core Ultra 7 265: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

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 50 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: +19.5% higher average FPS across 50 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.

Quick Answers

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

Yes. Core Ultra 7 265 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 19.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 98.4% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core Ultra 7 265 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 19.5% more average FPS across 50 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 stronger fit. You are getting 98.4% better PassMark, backed by 20 cores and 20 threads. It also has 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 better buy right now. Core Ultra 7 265 comes in 95.9% more expensive on MSRP at $384 MSRP versus $196 MSRP, and it still gives you a 19.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 1.3% better value on MSRP (129.3 vs 127.7 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit 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 makes more sense long term 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 gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

Core i5-13400F vs Core Ultra 7 265 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

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 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core Ultra 7 265 supports up to 256 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 33.3% 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+33%
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	256 GB+33%
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

At launch, the Core i5-13400F was priced at $196, while the Core Ultra 7 265 came in at $384. On launch pricing ($196 vs $384), Core i5-13400F was $188 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 129.3 pts/$ for the Core Ultra 7 265 — making the Core Ultra 7 265 the 1.3% better value option.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 265
MSRP	$196-49%	$384
Performance per Dollar	127.7	129.3+1%
Release Date	2023	2025

Search Core i5-13400F on Amazon

Search Core Ultra 7 265 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.