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.

Core i9-13900F vs Core Ultra 7 265 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core i9-13900F vs Core Ultra 7 265: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i9-13900F

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+20% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 30 MB).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 7 265.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (48,934 vs 49,666).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 93.4 vs 129.3 PassMark/$ ($524 MSRP vs $384 MSRP).
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 265 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core Ultra 7 265

2025

Why buy it

✅+1.5% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $140 less on MSRP ($384 MSRP vs $524 MSRP).
✅Delivers 38.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 129.3 vs 93.4 PassMark/$ ($384 MSRP vs $524 MSRP).
✅20% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Graphics, while Core i9-13900F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-13900F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 36 MB).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i9-13900F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 7 265 better than Core i9-13900F?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i9-13900F is ahead with a 6.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 7 265 pulls ahead with 1.5% better PassMark. Core i9-13900F also has the bigger cache pool with 20% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 30 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 7 265 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.5% better PassMark, backed by 20 cores and 20 threads.

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

Core Ultra 7 265 is the better buy right now. Core Ultra 7 265 comes in $140 cheaper on MSRP at $384 MSRP versus $524 MSRP, and it still gives you 1.5% better PassMark. The compromise is that Core i9-13900F is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 6.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 38.5% better value on MSRP (129.3 vs 93.4 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper. That said, if you already own a compatible LGA1700 + DDR5 setup, Core i9-13900F can still make sense as a platform-matched option because it avoids a motherboard and RAM swap, but on MSRP alone you would want to find it meaningfully cheaper in real-world listings before that path becomes easy to justify.

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

Core Ultra 7 265 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2023) and more multi-core headroom with 20 cores / 20 threads instead of 24/32. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

Core i9-13900F vs Core Ultra 7 265 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core i9-13900F

The Core i9-13900F 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 24 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 5.5 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-5600, DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 48,934 points. Launch price was $524.

Core Ultra 7 265

The Core Ultra 7 265 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 20 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 5.3 GHz. L3 cache: 30 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: 49,666 points. Launch price was $394.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i9-13900F packs 24 cores / 32 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265 offers 20 cores / 20 threads — the Core i9-13900F has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.5 GHz on the Core i9-13900F versus 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265 — a 3.7% clock advantage for the Core i9-13900F (base: 2 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Core i9-13900F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Core Ultra 7 265 uses Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i9-13900F scores 48,934 against the Core Ultra 7 265's 49,666 — a 1.5% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265. L3 cache: 36 MB (total) on the Core i9-13900F vs 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 265.

Feature	Core i9-13900F	Core Ultra 7 265
Cores / Threads	24 / 32+20%	20 / 20
Boost Clock	5.5 GHz+4%	5.3 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz	2.4 GHz+20%
L3 Cache	36 MB (total)+20%	30 MB (total)
L2 Cache	2 MB (per core)	3 MB (per core)+50%
Process	Intel 7 nm	3 nm-57%
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
PassMark	48,934	49,666+1%
Cinebench R23 Multi	37,326	—
Geekbench 6 Single	2,801	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	17,199	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i9-13900F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Core Ultra 7 265 uses LGA1851 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-5600 on the Core i9-13900F versus 6400 on the Core Ultra 7 265 — the Core Ultra 7 265 supports 14.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core Ultra 7 265 supports up to 256 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 33.3% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i9-13900F) vs 24 (Core Ultra 7 265) — the Core Ultra 7 265 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: LGA1700 (Core i9-13900F) and Z890,B860 (Core Ultra 7 265).

Feature	Core i9-13900F	Core Ultra 7 265
Socket	LGA1700	LGA1851
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-5600	6400+14%
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	256 GB+33%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	24+20%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core Ultra 7 265 includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Graphics), while the Core i9-13900F requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 7 265 rivals Ryzen 7 9700X.

Feature	Core i9-13900F	Core Ultra 7 265
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	Intel Arc Graphics
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i9-13900F was priced at $524, while the Core Ultra 7 265 came in at $384. On launch pricing ($524 vs $384), Core Ultra 7 265 was $140 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i9-13900F delivers 93.4 pts/$ vs 129.3 pts/$ for the Core Ultra 7 265 — making the Core Ultra 7 265 the 32.3% better value option.

Feature	Core i9-13900F	Core Ultra 7 265
MSRP	$524	$384-27%
Performance per Dollar	93.4	129.3+38%
Release Date	2023	2025

Search Core i9-13900F on Amazon

Search Core Ultra 7 265 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.