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 $384 MSRP).
✅Delivers 20.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 105.9 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $384 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 7 265T.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265T across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,211 vs 34,000).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 30 MB).
❌85.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 35W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 265T can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core Ultra 7 265T

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.8% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Draws 35W instead of 65W, a 30W reduction.
✅20% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Graphics (Xe-LPG 4-core), while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 105.9 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($384 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Core Ultra 7 265T

2025

Why buy it

✅Costs $188 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $384 MSRP).
✅Delivers 20.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 105.9 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $384 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 7 265T.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.8% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Draws 35W instead of 65W, a 30W reduction.
✅20% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Graphics (Xe-LPG 4-core), while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265T across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,211 vs 34,000).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 30 MB).
❌85.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 35W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 265T can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 105.9 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($384 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Quick Answers

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

Yes. Core Ultra 7 265T is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 11.8% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data, 109.7% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, 62.5% 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 Ultra 7 265T is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 11.8% more average FPS across 4 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 265T is the better fit. You are getting 109.7% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, 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 265T is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-13400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core Ultra 7 265T is 95.9% more expensive on MSRP at $384 MSRP versus $196 MSRP, and it gives you a 11.8% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-13400F is also 20.5% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 105.9 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds 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 265T 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 265T Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 265T
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 265T

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 265T
1080p
low	545 FPS	375 FPS
medium	464 FPS	321 FPS
high	389 FPS	271 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	243 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	326 FPS
medium	403 FPS	290 FPS
high	345 FPS	246 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	208 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	192 FPS
medium	247 FPS	175 FPS
high	231 FPS	167 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	145 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core Ultra 7 265T

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 265T
1080p
low	530 FPS	817 FPS
medium	449 FPS	667 FPS
high	415 FPS	594 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	509 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	705 FPS
medium	422 FPS	579 FPS
high	382 FPS	503 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	428 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	500 FPS
medium	331 FPS	422 FPS
high	296 FPS	383 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	327 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core Ultra 7 265T

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 265T
1080p
low	626 FPS	989 FPS
medium	626 FPS	894 FPS
high	626 FPS	773 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	700 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	810 FPS
medium	626 FPS	718 FPS
high	598 FPS	619 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	548 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	553 FPS
medium	492 FPS	498 FPS
high	439 FPS	445 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	392 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core Ultra 7 265T

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

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

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 265T

The Core Ultra 7 265T 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 1.5 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): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 40,681 points. Launch price was $384.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265T offers 20 cores / 20 threads — the Core Ultra 7 265T has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265T — a 14.1% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265T (base: 2.5 GHz vs 1.5 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Core Ultra 7 265T uses Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Core Ultra 7 265T's 40,681 — a 47.6% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265T. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 16,211 vs 34,000 (70.9% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265T). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 2,954, a 20.4% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265T that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 16,455 (36.2% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265T). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 265T.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 265T
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	20 / 20+100%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz	5.3 GHz+15%
Base Clock	2.5 GHz+67%	1.5 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	40,681+63%
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211	34,000+110%
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407	2,954+23%
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408	16,455+44%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Core Ultra 7 265T uses LGA1851 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 memory speed. Both support up to 192 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 24 (Core Ultra 7 265T) — the Core Ultra 7 265T offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and Z890,H870,B860 (Core Ultra 7 265T).

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

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core Ultra 7 265T has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core Ultra 7 265T includes integrated graphics (Intel Graphics (Xe-LPG 4-core)), while the Core i5-13400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, Core Ultra 7 265T targets High End Desktop. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 265T
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	Intel Graphics (Xe-LPG 4-core)
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 Ultra 7 265T 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 105.9 pts/$ for the Core Ultra 7 265T — making the Core i5-13400F the 18.6% better value option.