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 i9-13900F

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.7% 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 255HX.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $524 MSRP, while Core Ultra 7 255HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 255HX can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core Ultra 7 255HX

2025

Why buy it

✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.
✅20% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Xe-LPG, 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.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (16,885 vs 17,199).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 36 MB).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i9-13900F.

Core i9-13900F

2023

Core Ultra 7 255HX

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.7% 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 255HX.

Why buy it

✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.
✅20% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Xe-LPG, while Core i9-13900F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $524 MSRP, while Core Ultra 7 255HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 255HX can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-13900F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (16,885 vs 17,199).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 36 MB).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i9-13900F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i9-13900F better than Core Ultra 7 255HX?

Yes. Core i9-13900F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 6.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 1.9% better Geekbench multi-core, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i9-13900F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 6.7% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i9-13900F is the better fit. You are getting 1.9% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 24 cores and 32 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 20% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 30 MB).

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

Core i9-13900F is the smarter buy today. Core i9-13900F is at an unclear MSRP at $524 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you a 6.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (93.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 Ultra 7 255HX is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2023). 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 i9-13900F Benchmark Check

Core Ultra 7 255HX Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i9-13900F	Core Ultra 7 255HX
1080p
low	321 FPS	280 FPS
medium	311 FPS	272 FPS
high	247 FPS	228 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	191 FPS
1440p
low	278 FPS	225 FPS
medium	240 FPS	193 FPS
high	178 FPS	156 FPS
ultra	158 FPS	135 FPS
4K
low	192 FPS	151 FPS
medium	164 FPS	129 FPS
high	123 FPS	99 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	87 FPS

Open Core i9-13900F Open Core Ultra 7 255HX

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i9-13900F	Core Ultra 7 255HX
1080p
low	497 FPS	673 FPS
medium	434 FPS	574 FPS
high	354 FPS	483 FPS
ultra	313 FPS	438 FPS
1440p
low	422 FPS	584 FPS
medium	380 FPS	515 FPS
high	316 FPS	434 FPS
ultra	257 FPS	370 FPS
4K
low	236 FPS	345 FPS
medium	216 FPS	310 FPS
high	205 FPS	292 FPS
ultra	179 FPS	254 FPS

Open Core i9-13900F Open Core Ultra 7 255HX

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i9-13900F	Core Ultra 7 255HX
1080p
low	762 FPS	839 FPS
medium	626 FPS	685 FPS
high	543 FPS	610 FPS
ultra	467 FPS	522 FPS
1440p
low	680 FPS	727 FPS
medium	567 FPS	596 FPS
high	485 FPS	519 FPS
ultra	423 FPS	441 FPS
4K
low	497 FPS	515 FPS
medium	430 FPS	434 FPS
high	383 FPS	394 FPS
ultra	329 FPS	336 FPS

Open Core i9-13900F Open Core Ultra 7 255HX

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i9-13900F	Core Ultra 7 255HX
1080p
low	1012 FPS	995 FPS
medium	905 FPS	901 FPS
high	792 FPS	782 FPS
ultra	704 FPS	709 FPS
1440p
low	840 FPS	814 FPS
medium	739 FPS	724 FPS
high	646 FPS	627 FPS
ultra	568 FPS	555 FPS
4K
low	620 FPS	555 FPS
medium	555 FPS	501 FPS
high	491 FPS	449 FPS
ultra	430 FPS	396 FPS

Open Core i9-13900F Open Core Ultra 7 255HX

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i9-13900F and Core Ultra 7 255HX

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 255HX

The Core Ultra 7 255HX is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2025-01-01. It is based on the Arrow Lake-HX (2025) architecture. It features 20 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 5.2 GHz. L3 cache: 30 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2114. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 49,765 points. Launch price was $450.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i9-13900F packs 24 cores / 32 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 255HX 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 5.2 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 255HX — a 5.6% 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 255HX uses Arrow Lake-HX (2025) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i9-13900F scores 48,934 against the Core Ultra 7 255HX's 49,765 — a 1.7% lead for the Core Ultra 7 255HX. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,801 vs 2,923, a 4.3% lead for the Core Ultra 7 255HX that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 17,199 vs 16,885 (1.8% advantage for the Core i9-13900F). L3 cache: 36 MB (total) on the Core i9-13900F vs 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 255HX.

Feature	Core i9-13900F	Core Ultra 7 255HX
Cores / Threads	24 / 32+20%	20 / 20
Boost Clock	5.5 GHz+6%	5.2 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-HX (2025)
PassMark	48,934	49,765+2%
Cinebench R23 Multi	37,326	—
Geekbench 6 Single	2,801	2,923+4%
Geekbench 6 Multi	17,199+2%	16,885

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i9-13900F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Core Ultra 7 255HX uses FCBGA2114 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-5600 memory speed. Both support up to 192 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i9-13900F) vs 24 (Core Ultra 7 255HX) — the Core Ultra 7 255HX offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: LGA1700 (Core i9-13900F) and Intel HM870,Intel WM880 (Core Ultra 7 255HX).

Feature	Core i9-13900F	Core Ultra 7 255HX
Socket	LGA1700	FCBGA2114
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-5600	DDR5-6400
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	192 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	20	24+20%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core Ultra 7 255HX has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the Core i9-13900F supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i9-13900F) vs true (Core Ultra 7 255HX). The Core Ultra 7 255HX includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Xe-LPG), while the Core i9-13900F requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 7 255HX rivals Ryzen 9 9850HX.