
Core i5-13400F
Popular choices:

Core Ultra 7 165H
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
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 7 165H.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 165H across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 25,849).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 24 MB).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $196 MSRP, while Core Ultra 7 165H mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
Core Ultra 7 165H
2023Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +30.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+20% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 20 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.
Core i5-13400F
2023Core Ultra 7 165H
2023Why buy it
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 7 165H.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +30.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+20% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 20 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 165H across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 25,849).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 24 MB).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $196 MSRP, while Core Ultra 7 165H mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
Trade-offs
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Core Ultra 7 165H 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 7 165H |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 171 FPS | 308 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 278 FPS |
| high | 132 FPS | 232 FPS |
| ultra | 112 FPS | 198 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 143 FPS | 251 FPS |
| medium | 123 FPS | 201 FPS |
| high | 99 FPS | 163 FPS |
| ultra | 84 FPS | 143 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 81 FPS | 173 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 139 FPS |
| high | 59 FPS | 107 FPS |
| ultra | 46 FPS | 93 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 7 165H |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 545 FPS | 646 FPS |
| medium | 464 FPS | 585 FPS |
| high | 389 FPS | 478 FPS |
| ultra | 356 FPS | 430 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 458 FPS | 632 FPS |
| medium | 403 FPS | 530 FPS |
| high | 345 FPS | 437 FPS |
| ultra | 301 FPS | 371 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 280 FPS | 375 FPS |
| medium | 247 FPS | 320 FPS |
| high | 231 FPS | 295 FPS |
| ultra | 204 FPS | 258 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 7 165H |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 530 FPS | 646 FPS |
| medium | 449 FPS | 646 FPS |
| high | 415 FPS | 646 FPS |
| ultra | 375 FPS | 646 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 490 FPS | 646 FPS |
| medium | 422 FPS | 646 FPS |
| high | 382 FPS | 631 FPS |
| ultra | 343 FPS | 543 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 393 FPS | 641 FPS |
| medium | 331 FPS | 531 FPS |
| high | 296 FPS | 475 FPS |
| ultra | 246 FPS | 402 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 7 165H |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 646 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 646 FPS |
| high | 626 FPS | 646 FPS |
| ultra | 626 FPS | 646 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 646 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 646 FPS |
| high | 598 FPS | 646 FPS |
| ultra | 521 FPS | 579 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 535 FPS | 606 FPS |
| medium | 492 FPS | 538 FPS |
| high | 439 FPS | 486 FPS |
| ultra | 382 FPS | 423 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Core Ultra 7 165H

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 7 165H
Core Ultra 7 165H
The Core Ultra 7 165H is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 December 2023 (1 year ago). It is based on the Meteor Lake-H (2023) architecture. It features 16 cores and 22 threads. Base frequency is 3.8 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 24 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on 7 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2049. Thermal design power (TDP): + 24 MB. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 25,849 points. Launch price was $460.
Processing Power
The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 165H offers 16 cores / 22 threads — the Core Ultra 7 165H has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 5 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 165H — a 8.3% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 165H (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.8 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Core Ultra 7 165H uses Meteor Lake-H (2023) (7 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Core Ultra 7 165H's 25,849 — a 3.2% lead for the Core Ultra 7 165H. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 24 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 165H.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 7 165H |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 10 / 16 | 16 / 22+60% |
| Boost Clock | 4.6 GHz | 5 GHz+9% |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz | 3.8 GHz+52% |
| L3 Cache | 20 MB (total) | 24 MB (total)+20% |
| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core)+60% |
| Process | Intel 7 nm | 7 nm |
| Architecture | Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) | Meteor Lake-H (2023) |
| PassMark | 25,029 | 25,849+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 Core Ultra 7 165H uses FCBGA2049 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 7 165H |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | FCBGA2049 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| 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 (Core Ultra 7 165H). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 7 165H |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | — |
| Target Use | Gaming | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













