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

✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 9 275HX.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 275HX across 10 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (11,408 vs 17,908).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 36 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $196 MSRP, while Core Ultra 9 275HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.

Core Ultra 9 275HX

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +40.1% higher average FPS across 10 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+80% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.
✅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

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Core Ultra 9 275HX

2025

Why buy it

✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 9 275HX.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +40.1% higher average FPS across 10 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+80% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.
✅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 9 275HX across 10 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (11,408 vs 17,908).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 36 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $196 MSRP, while Core Ultra 9 275HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 9 275HX better than Core i5-13400F?

Yes. Core Ultra 9 275HX is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 40.1% average FPS lead across 10 shared CPU game tests in our data, 57% better Geekbench multi-core, 123.8% 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 9 275HX is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 40.1% 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 9 275HX is the better fit. You are getting 57% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 24 cores and 24 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 80% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 20 MB).

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

Core Ultra 9 275HX is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-13400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core Ultra 9 275HX is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $196 MSRP, and it gives you a 40.1% average FPS lead across 10 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-13400F is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 9 275HX is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2023), 80% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 20 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 24 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 9 275HX Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 9 275HX
1080p
low	171 FPS	309 FPS
medium	158 FPS	299 FPS
high	132 FPS	246 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	208 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	269 FPS
medium	123 FPS	228 FPS
high	99 FPS	175 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	154 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	179 FPS
medium	74 FPS	151 FPS
high	59 FPS	112 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	101 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core Ultra 9 275HX

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 9 275HX
1080p
low	545 FPS	802 FPS
medium	464 FPS	700 FPS
high	389 FPS	565 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	495 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	682 FPS
medium	403 FPS	614 FPS
high	345 FPS	505 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	408 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	382 FPS
medium	247 FPS	349 FPS
high	231 FPS	326 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	283 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core Ultra 9 275HX

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 9 275HX
1080p
low	530 FPS	866 FPS
medium	449 FPS	708 FPS
high	415 FPS	628 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	537 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	744 FPS
medium	422 FPS	611 FPS
high	382 FPS	529 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	453 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	527 FPS
medium	331 FPS	446 FPS
high	296 FPS	403 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	344 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core Ultra 9 275HX

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 9 275HX
1080p
low	626 FPS	1078 FPS
medium	626 FPS	959 FPS
high	626 FPS	841 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	757 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	862 FPS
medium	626 FPS	756 FPS
high	598 FPS	660 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	585 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	635 FPS
medium	492 FPS	565 FPS
high	439 FPS	500 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core Ultra 9 275HX

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Core Ultra 9 275HX

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 9 275HX

The Core Ultra 9 275HX is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2025-01-01. It is based on the Arrow Lake-HX (2025) architecture. It features 24 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 5.4 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2114. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 56,018 points. Launch price was $600.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX offers 24 cores / 24 threads — the Core Ultra 9 275HX has 14 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 5.4 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 275HX — a 16% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 9 275HX (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Core Ultra 9 275HX uses Arrow Lake-HX (2025) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Core Ultra 9 275HX's 56,018 — a 76.5% lead for the Core Ultra 9 275HX. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 2,835, a 16.3% lead for the Core Ultra 9 275HX that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 17,908 (44.3% advantage for the Core Ultra 9 275HX). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 36 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 9 275HX.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 9 275HX
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	24 / 24+140%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz	5.4 GHz+17%
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	2.7 GHz+8%
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	36 MB (total)+80%
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-HX (2025)
PassMark	25,029	56,018+124%
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211	—
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407	2,835+18%
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408	17,908+57%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Core Ultra 9 275HX uses FCBGA2114 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 memory speed. The Core Ultra 9 275HX supports up to 256 GB 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 9 275HX) — the Core Ultra 9 275HX offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and HM870,WM880 (Core Ultra 9 275HX).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 9 275HX
Socket	LGA1700	FCBGA2114
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	DDR5-6400
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	256 GB+33%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	20	24+20%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core Ultra 9 275HX has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core Ultra 9 275HX includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Graphics), while the Core i5-13400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, Core Ultra 9 275HX targets High-End Gaming Laptop. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; Core Ultra 9 275HX rivals Ryzen 9 9955HX.