
Core i5-13400F
Popular choices:

Core Ultra 9 285T
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
- ✅Costs $353 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 89.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 67.2 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 9 285T.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 285T across 9 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 36,916).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 36 MB).
- ❌85.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 35W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 9 285T can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Core Ultra 9 285T
2025Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +25.9% higher average FPS across 9 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+80% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 20 MB).
- ✅Draws 35W instead of 65W, a 30W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics, while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 67.2 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($549 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.
Core i5-13400F
2023Core Ultra 9 285T
2025Why buy it
- ✅Costs $353 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 89.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 67.2 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 9 285T.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +25.9% higher average FPS across 9 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+80% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 20 MB).
- ✅Draws 35W instead of 65W, a 30W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics, while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 285T across 9 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 36,916).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 36 MB).
- ❌85.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 35W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 9 285T can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 67.2 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($549 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Core Ultra 9 285T 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 285T |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 9 285T |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 545 FPS | 429 FPS |
| medium | 464 FPS | 375 FPS |
| high | 389 FPS | 306 FPS |
| ultra | 356 FPS | 267 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 458 FPS | 364 FPS |
| medium | 403 FPS | 328 FPS |
| high | 345 FPS | 273 FPS |
| ultra | 301 FPS | 220 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 280 FPS | 204 FPS |
| medium | 247 FPS | 187 FPS |
| high | 231 FPS | 178 FPS |
| ultra | 204 FPS | 154 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 9 285T |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 530 FPS | 844 FPS |
| medium | 449 FPS | 690 FPS |
| high | 415 FPS | 612 FPS |
| ultra | 375 FPS | 525 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 490 FPS | 723 FPS |
| medium | 422 FPS | 594 FPS |
| high | 382 FPS | 514 FPS |
| ultra | 343 FPS | 441 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 393 FPS | 512 FPS |
| medium | 331 FPS | 434 FPS |
| high | 296 FPS | 392 FPS |
| ultra | 246 FPS | 335 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 9 285T |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 923 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 923 FPS |
| high | 626 FPS | 829 FPS |
| ultra | 626 FPS | 744 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 852 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 747 FPS |
| high | 598 FPS | 650 FPS |
| ultra | 521 FPS | 575 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 535 FPS | 628 FPS |
| medium | 492 FPS | 559 FPS |
| high | 439 FPS | 493 FPS |
| ultra | 382 FPS | 435 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Core Ultra 9 285T

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 285T
Core Ultra 9 285T
The Core Ultra 9 285T 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 24 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 1.4 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: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 36,916 points. Launch price was $549.
Processing Power
The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285T offers 24 cores / 24 threads — the Core Ultra 9 285T has 14 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 5.4 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 285T — a 16% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285T (base: 2.5 GHz vs 1.4 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Core Ultra 9 285T uses Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Core Ultra 9 285T's 36,916 — a 38.4% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285T. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 36 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 9 285T.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 9 285T |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 10 / 16 | 24 / 24+140% |
| Boost Clock | 4.6 GHz | 5.4 GHz+17% |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz+79% | 1.4 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 | 36,916+47% |
| 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 9 285T 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 9 285T — the Core Ultra 9 285T supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core Ultra 9 285T supports up to 256 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 28.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 20 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and Z890,B860 (Core Ultra 9 285T).
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 9 285T |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | LGA1851 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 | 6400+127900% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 192 GB+78643100% | 256 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 20 | 20 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core Ultra 9 285T includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Xe-LPG 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 9 285T rivals Ryzen 9 7900.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 9 285T |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | Gaming | — |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the Core Ultra 9 285T debuted at $549. On MSRP ($196 vs $549), the Core i5-13400F is $353 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 67.2 pts/$ for the Core Ultra 9 285T — making the Core i5-13400F the 62% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 9 285T |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $196-64% | $549 |
| Performance per Dollar | 127.7+90% | 67.2 |
| Release Date | 2023 | 2025 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













