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 $393 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
✅Delivers 30.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 97.5 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 9 285.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 285 across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,211 vs 40,000).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 36 MB).
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 9 285 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core Ultra 9 285

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +37.9% higher average FPS across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+80% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 20 MB).
✅20% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Arc Graphics, while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 97.5 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($589 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Core Ultra 9 285

2025

Why buy it

✅Costs $393 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
✅Delivers 30.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 97.5 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 9 285.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +37.9% higher average FPS across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+80% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 20 MB).
✅20% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Arc Graphics, while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 285 across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,211 vs 40,000).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 36 MB).
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 9 285 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 97.5 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($589 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 9 285 better than Core i5-13400F?

Yes. Core Ultra 9 285 is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 37.9% average FPS lead across 8 shared CPU game tests in our data, 146.7% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, 129.5% 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 9 285 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 37.9% more average FPS across 8 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 9 285 is the better fit. You are getting 146.7% better Cinebench R23 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 9 285 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-13400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core Ultra 9 285 is 200.5% more expensive on MSRP at $589 MSRP versus $196 MSRP, and it gives you a 37.9% average FPS lead across 8 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-13400F is also 30.9% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 97.5 PassMark/$), 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 9 285 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 9 285 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 9 285
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 9 285

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 9 285
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 9 285

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 9 285
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 9 285

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 9 285
1080p
low	626 FPS	1075 FPS
medium	626 FPS	957 FPS
high	626 FPS	839 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	754 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	860 FPS
medium	626 FPS	754 FPS
high	598 FPS	659 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	583 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	633 FPS
medium	492 FPS	564 FPS
high	439 FPS	499 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core Ultra 9 285

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Core Ultra 9 285

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 9 285

The Core Ultra 9 285 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in Janeiro 2025 (recentemente). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 24 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 5.5 GHz. L3 cache: 36 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: 57,442 points. Launch price was $579.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285 offers 24 cores / 24 threads — the Core Ultra 9 285 has 14 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 5.5 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 285 — a 17.8% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285 (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Core Ultra 9 285's 57,442 — a 78.6% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 16,211 vs 40,000 (84.6% advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 3,000, a 21.9% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 20,000 (54.7% advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 36 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 9 285.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 9 285
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	24 / 24+140%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz	5.5 GHz+20%
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	2.5 GHz
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-S (2024−2025)
PassMark	25,029	57,442+130%
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211	40,000+147%
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407	3,000+25%
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408	20,000+75%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Core Ultra 9 285 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 9 285) — the Core Ultra 9 285 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and Intel 800 Series (Core Ultra 9 285).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 9 285
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

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F) vs Yes (Core Ultra 9 285). The Core Ultra 9 285 includes integrated graphics (Arc Graphics), while the Core i5-13400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, Core Ultra 9 285 targets High-End Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 9 285
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	Arc Graphics
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	Yes
Target Use	Gaming	High-End Gaming

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the Core Ultra 9 285 debuted at $589. On MSRP ($196 vs $589), the Core i5-13400F is $393 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 97.5 pts/$ for the Core Ultra 9 285 — making the Core i5-13400F the 26.8% better value option.