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

✅Better for gaming: +3.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $4,804 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $5,000 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1101.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 10.6 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $5,000 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 150W, a 85W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (11,408 vs 15,000).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 33 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon Platinum 8160M, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 48 PCIe lanes.

Xeon Platinum 8160M

2017

Why buy it

✅+31.5% higher Geekbench multi-core.
✅+65% larger total L3 cache (33 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 48 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅140% more PCIe lanes (48 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.6 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($5,000 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌130.8% higher power demand at 150W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Xeon Platinum 8160M

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $4,804 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $5,000 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1101.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 10.6 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $5,000 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 150W, a 85W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅+31.5% higher Geekbench multi-core.
✅+65% larger total L3 cache (33 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 48 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅140% more PCIe lanes (48 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (11,408 vs 15,000).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 33 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon Platinum 8160M, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 48 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.6 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($5,000 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌130.8% higher power demand at 150W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-13400F better than Xeon Platinum 8160M?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon Platinum 8160M makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-13400F is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon Platinum 8160M is the better fit. You are getting 31.5% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 24 cores and 48 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 65% larger total L3 cache (33 MB vs 20 MB).

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

Core i5-13400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-13400F is $4,804 cheaper on MSRP at $196 MSRP versus $5,000 MSRP, and it gives you a 3.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that Xeon Platinum 8160M is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 31.5% better Geekbench multi-core. It is also 1101.1% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 10.6 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core i5-13400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2017) and a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of LGA3647. 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

Xeon Platinum 8160M Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon Platinum 8160M
1080p
low	171 FPS	195 FPS
medium	158 FPS	158 FPS
high	132 FPS	128 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	100 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	157 FPS
medium	123 FPS	123 FPS
high	99 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	76 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	72 FPS
medium	74 FPS	60 FPS
high	59 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	38 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon Platinum 8160M

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon Platinum 8160M
1080p
low	545 FPS	212 FPS
medium	464 FPS	188 FPS
high	389 FPS	161 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	137 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	184 FPS
medium	403 FPS	167 FPS
high	345 FPS	143 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	120 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	120 FPS
medium	247 FPS	109 FPS
high	231 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	82 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon Platinum 8160M

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon Platinum 8160M
1080p
low	530 FPS	894 FPS
medium	449 FPS	779 FPS
high	415 FPS	736 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	652 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	710 FPS
medium	422 FPS	610 FPS
high	382 FPS	576 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	508 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	458 FPS
medium	331 FPS	360 FPS
high	296 FPS	320 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	260 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon Platinum 8160M

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon Platinum 8160M
1080p
low	626 FPS	848 FPS
medium	626 FPS	767 FPS
high	626 FPS	670 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	583 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	679 FPS
medium	626 FPS	593 FPS
high	598 FPS	515 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	442 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	477 FPS
medium	492 FPS	427 FPS
high	439 FPS	381 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	330 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon Platinum 8160M

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Xeon Platinum 8160M

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.

Xeon Platinum 8160M

The Xeon Platinum 8160M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 25 April 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (server) (2017−2018) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 33 MB. L2 cache: 24 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 150 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2666. Passmark benchmark score: 53,158 points. Launch price was $7,704.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Xeon Platinum 8160M offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the Xeon Platinum 8160M has 14 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 3.7 GHz on the Xeon Platinum 8160M — a 21.7% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Xeon Platinum 8160M uses Skylake (server) (2017−2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Xeon Platinum 8160M's 53,158 — a 72% lead for the Xeon Platinum 8160M. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 850, a 95.6% lead for the Core i5-13400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 15,000 (27.2% advantage for the Xeon Platinum 8160M). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 33 MB on the Xeon Platinum 8160M.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon Platinum 8160M
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	24 / 48+140%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+24%	3.7 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz+19%	2.1 GHz
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	33 MB+65%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)	24 MB+1820%
Process	Intel 7 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Skylake (server) (2017−2018)
PassMark	25,029	53,158+112%
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211	—
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407+183%	850
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408	15,000+31%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon Platinum 8160M uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-13400F versus DDR4-2666 on the Xeon Platinum 8160M — the Core i5-13400F supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon Platinum 8160M supports up to 1536 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 155.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 6 (Xeon Platinum 8160M). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 48 (Xeon Platinum 8160M) — the Xeon Platinum 8160M offers 28 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and C621 (Xeon Platinum 8160M).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon Platinum 8160M
Socket	LGA1700	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+67%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200+25%	DDR4-2666
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	1536 GB+700%
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	48+140%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon Platinum 8160M supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, Xeon Platinum 8160M targets Datacenter. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; Xeon Platinum 8160M rivals EPYC 7401.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon Platinum 8160M
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Gaming	Datacenter

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the Xeon Platinum 8160M debuted at $5000. On MSRP ($196 vs $5000), the Core i5-13400F is $4804 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 10.6 pts/$ for the Xeon Platinum 8160M — making the Core i5-13400F the 169.3% better value option.