
Core i5-13400F
Popular choices:

Core Ultra 9 285H
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
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
2023Why buy it
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 9 285H.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 285H across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,211 vs 26,500).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 24 MB).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $196 MSRP, while Core Ultra 9 285H mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌44.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 45W.
Core Ultra 9 285H
2025Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +32.1% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+20% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 20 MB).
- ✅Draws 45W instead of 65W, a 20W reduction.
- ✅40% more PCIe lanes (28 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc 140T (8 Xe-cores), while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.
Core i5-13400F
2023Core Ultra 9 285H
2025Why buy it
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 9 285H.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +32.1% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+20% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 20 MB).
- ✅Draws 45W instead of 65W, a 20W reduction.
- ✅40% more PCIe lanes (28 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc 140T (8 Xe-cores), while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 285H across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,211 vs 26,500).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 24 MB).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $196 MSRP, while Core Ultra 9 285H mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌44.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 45W.
Trade-offs
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Core Ultra 9 285H better than Core i5-13400F?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 9 285H |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 171 FPS | 300 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 274 FPS |
| high | 132 FPS | 229 FPS |
| ultra | 112 FPS | 195 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 143 FPS | 244 FPS |
| medium | 123 FPS | 199 FPS |
| high | 99 FPS | 161 FPS |
| ultra | 84 FPS | 140 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 81 FPS | 169 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 138 FPS |
| high | 59 FPS | 106 FPS |
| ultra | 46 FPS | 93 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 9 285H |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 545 FPS | 749 FPS |
| medium | 464 FPS | 602 FPS |
| high | 389 FPS | 496 FPS |
| ultra | 356 FPS | 440 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 458 FPS | 650 FPS |
| medium | 403 FPS | 544 FPS |
| high | 345 FPS | 449 FPS |
| ultra | 301 FPS | 376 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 280 FPS | 383 FPS |
| medium | 247 FPS | 328 FPS |
| high | 231 FPS | 303 FPS |
| ultra | 204 FPS | 260 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 9 285H |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 530 FPS | 858 FPS |
| medium | 449 FPS | 826 FPS |
| high | 415 FPS | 717 FPS |
| ultra | 375 FPS | 611 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 490 FPS | 858 FPS |
| medium | 422 FPS | 684 FPS |
| high | 382 FPS | 591 FPS |
| ultra | 343 FPS | 506 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 393 FPS | 599 FPS |
| medium | 331 FPS | 497 FPS |
| high | 296 FPS | 449 FPS |
| ultra | 246 FPS | 380 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 9 285H |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 858 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 858 FPS |
| high | 626 FPS | 839 FPS |
| ultra | 626 FPS | 742 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 858 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 780 FPS |
| high | 598 FPS | 680 FPS |
| ultra | 521 FPS | 587 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 535 FPS | 594 FPS |
| medium | 492 FPS | 529 FPS |
| high | 439 FPS | 477 FPS |
| ultra | 382 FPS | 416 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Core Ultra 9 285H

Core i5-13400F
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 285H
Core Ultra 9 285H
The Core Ultra 9 285H is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 13 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-H (2025) architecture. It features 16 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 5.4 GHz. L3 cache: 24 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2049. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 34,327 points. Launch price was $651.
Processing Power
The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285H offers 16 cores / 16 threads — the Core Ultra 9 285H has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 5.4 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 285H — a 16% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285H (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Core Ultra 9 285H uses Arrow Lake-H (2025) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Core Ultra 9 285H's 34,327 — a 31.3% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285H. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 16,211 vs 26,500 (48.2% advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285H). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 2,720, a 12.2% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285H that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 15,330 (29.3% advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285H). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 24 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 9 285H.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 9 285H |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 10 / 16 | 16 / 16+60% |
| Boost Clock | 4.6 GHz | 5.4 GHz+17% |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz | 2.9 GHz+16% |
| L3 Cache | 20 MB (total) | 24 MB (total)+20% |
| 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-H (2025) |
| PassMark | 25,029 | 34,327+37% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 16,211 | 26,500+63% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,407 | 2,720+13% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 11,408 | 15,330+34% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Core Ultra 9 285H uses FCBGA2049 (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 28 (Core Ultra 9 285H) — the Core Ultra 9 285H offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and SoC (Core Ultra 9 285H).
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 9 285H |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | FCBGA2049 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 | LPDDR5x-8400, DDR5-6400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 192 GB | 192 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 20 | 28+40% |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core Ultra 9 285H). The Core Ultra 9 285H includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc 140T (8 Xe-cores)), while the Core i5-13400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, Core Ultra 9 285H targets High-end Mobile Workstation. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; Core Ultra 9 285H rivals Ryzen AI 9 HX 375.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 9 285H |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel Arc 140T (8 Xe-cores) |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d, EPT |
| Target Use | Gaming | High-end Mobile Workstation |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













