
Core i5-13400F
Popular choices:

Ryzen 7 250
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
- ✅+25% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 16 MB).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 7 250.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 250 across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 25,677).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $196 MSRP, while Ryzen 7 250 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌132.1% higher power demand at 65W vs 28W.
Ryzen 7 250
2025Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +13.3% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Draws 28W instead of 65W, a 37W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 20 MB).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.
Core i5-13400F
2023Ryzen 7 250
2025Why buy it
- ✅+25% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 16 MB).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 7 250.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +13.3% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Draws 28W instead of 65W, a 37W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 250 across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 25,677).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $196 MSRP, while Ryzen 7 250 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌132.1% higher power demand at 65W vs 28W.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 20 MB).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Ryzen 7 250 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 | Ryzen 7 250 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 171 FPS | 255 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 235 FPS |
| high | 132 FPS | 198 FPS |
| ultra | 112 FPS | 170 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 143 FPS | 227 FPS |
| medium | 123 FPS | 189 FPS |
| high | 99 FPS | 154 FPS |
| ultra | 84 FPS | 136 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 81 FPS | 157 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 133 FPS |
| high | 59 FPS | 103 FPS |
| ultra | 46 FPS | 91 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Ryzen 7 250 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 545 FPS | 469 FPS |
| medium | 464 FPS | 388 FPS |
| high | 389 FPS | 336 FPS |
| ultra | 356 FPS | 301 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 458 FPS | 410 FPS |
| medium | 403 FPS | 358 FPS |
| high | 345 FPS | 310 FPS |
| ultra | 301 FPS | 265 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 280 FPS | 270 FPS |
| medium | 247 FPS | 247 FPS |
| high | 231 FPS | 234 FPS |
| ultra | 204 FPS | 202 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Ryzen 7 250 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 530 FPS | 642 FPS |
| medium | 449 FPS | 642 FPS |
| high | 415 FPS | 642 FPS |
| ultra | 375 FPS | 594 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 490 FPS | 642 FPS |
| medium | 422 FPS | 622 FPS |
| high | 382 FPS | 525 FPS |
| ultra | 343 FPS | 451 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 393 FPS | 521 FPS |
| medium | 331 FPS | 458 FPS |
| high | 296 FPS | 406 FPS |
| ultra | 246 FPS | 345 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Ryzen 7 250 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 642 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 642 FPS |
| high | 626 FPS | 642 FPS |
| ultra | 626 FPS | 642 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 642 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 642 FPS |
| high | 598 FPS | 633 FPS |
| ultra | 521 FPS | 548 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 535 FPS | 559 FPS |
| medium | 492 FPS | 501 FPS |
| high | 439 FPS | 446 FPS |
| ultra | 382 FPS | 384 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Ryzen 7 250

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.


Ryzen 7 250
Ryzen 7 250
The Ryzen 7 250 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 6 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Hawk Point (2024−2025) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 5.1 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: FP8. Thermal design power (TDP): 28 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 25,677 points. Launch price was $299.
Processing Power
The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Ryzen 7 250 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Core i5-13400F has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 5.1 GHz on the Ryzen 7 250 — a 10.3% clock advantage for the Ryzen 7 250 (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.3 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Ryzen 7 250 uses Hawk Point (2024−2025) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Ryzen 7 250's 25,677 — a 2.6% lead for the Ryzen 7 250. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 16 MB (total) on the Ryzen 7 250.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Ryzen 7 250 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 10 / 16+25% | 8 / 16 |
| Boost Clock | 4.6 GHz | 5.1 GHz+11% |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz | 3.3 GHz+32% |
| L3 Cache | 20 MB (total)+25% | 16 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core)+25% | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | Intel 7 nm | 4 nm-43% |
| Architecture | Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) | Hawk Point (2024−2025) |
| PassMark | 25,029 | 25,677+3% |
| 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 Ryzen 7 250 uses FP8 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Ryzen 7 250 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | FP8 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+25% | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 | — |
| Max RAM Capacity | 192 GB | — |
| RAM Channels | 2 | — |
| ECC Support | No | — |
| PCIe Lanes | 20 | — |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F) / not specified (Ryzen 7 250). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Ryzen 7 250 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | — |
| Target Use | Gaming | — |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the Ryzen 7 250 debuted at $0. On MSRP ($196 vs $0), the Ryzen 7 250 is $196 cheaper.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Ryzen 7 250 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $196 | $0-100% |
| Performance per Dollar | 127.7 | — |
| Release Date | 2023 | 2025 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












