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 i5-10400F

2020

Why buy it

✅Costs $224 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $384 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 7 265.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265 across 24 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 49,666).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 30 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 129.3 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $384 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 265 moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.

Core Ultra 7 265

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +44.1% higher average FPS across 24 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+150% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Delivers 58.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 129.3 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($384 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
✅50% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌
140% HIGHER MSRP
$384 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Core Ultra 7 265

2025

Why buy it

✅Costs $224 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $384 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 7 265.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +44.1% higher average FPS across 24 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+150% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Delivers 58.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 129.3 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($384 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
✅50% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265 across 24 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 49,666).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 30 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 129.3 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $384 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 265 moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌
140% HIGHER MSRP
$384 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 7 265 better than Core i5-10400F?

Yes. Core Ultra 7 265 is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 44.1% average FPS lead across 24 shared CPU game tests in our data, 281.2% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core Ultra 7 265 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 44.1% more average FPS across 24 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 7 265 is the better fit. You are getting 281.2% better PassMark, backed by 20 cores and 20 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 150% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Core Ultra 7 265 is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 7 265 is 140.0% more expensive on MSRP at $384 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 44.1% average FPS lead across 24 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 58.8% better value on MSRP (129.3 vs 81.4 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper. That said, if you already own a compatible LGA1200 + DDR4 setup, Core i5-10400F can still make sense as a platform-matched option because it avoids a motherboard and RAM swap.

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

Core Ultra 7 265 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2020), a healthier platform with LGA1851 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200, 150% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 12 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 20 cores / 20 threads instead of 6/12. 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 i5-10400F Benchmark Check

Core Ultra 7 265 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 265
1080p
low	192 FPS	280 FPS
medium	152 FPS	273 FPS
high	123 FPS	227 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	191 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	226 FPS
medium	119 FPS	194 FPS
high	97 FPS	155 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	135 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	151 FPS
medium	70 FPS	129 FPS
high	55 FPS	99 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	87 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 7 265

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 265
1080p
low	326 FPS	695 FPS
medium	318 FPS	593 FPS
high	290 FPS	498 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	448 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	605 FPS
medium	292 FPS	539 FPS
high	267 FPS	452 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	384 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	356 FPS
medium	258 FPS	324 FPS
high	235 FPS	305 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	266 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 7 265

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 265
1080p
low	326 FPS	839 FPS
medium	326 FPS	685 FPS
high	326 FPS	610 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	522 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	727 FPS
medium	326 FPS	596 FPS
high	326 FPS	519 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	441 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	515 FPS
medium	326 FPS	434 FPS
high	289 FPS	394 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	336 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 7 265

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 265
1080p
low	326 FPS	995 FPS
medium	326 FPS	901 FPS
high	326 FPS	782 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	709 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	814 FPS
medium	326 FPS	724 FPS
high	326 FPS	627 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	555 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	555 FPS
medium	326 FPS	501 FPS
high	326 FPS	449 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	396 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 7 265

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core Ultra 7 265

Core i5-10400F

The Core i5-10400F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 April 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 4.3 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1200. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 13,029 points. Launch price was $155.

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 i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265 offers 20 cores / 20 threads — the Core Ultra 7 265 has 14 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265 — a 20.8% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265 (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core Ultra 7 265 uses Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core Ultra 7 265's 49,666 — a 116.9% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 265.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 265
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	20 / 20+233%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	5.3 GHz+23%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+21%	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	30 MB (total)+150%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	3 MB (per core)+1100%
Process	14 nm	3 nm-79%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
PassMark	13,029	49,666+281%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core Ultra 7 265 uses LGA1851 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus 6400 on the Core Ultra 7 265 — the Core Ultra 7 265 supports 199.8% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core Ultra 7 265 supports up to 256 of RAM compared to 128 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 24 (Core Ultra 7 265) — the Core Ultra 7 265 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and Z890,B860 (Core Ultra 7 265).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 265
Socket	LGA1200	LGA1851
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	6400+159900%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+52428700%	256
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	24+50%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Core Ultra 7 265 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core Ultra 7 265 includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Graphics), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Core Ultra 7 265 rivals Ryzen 7 9700X.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 265
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	Intel Arc Graphics
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Core Ultra 7 265 debuted at $384. On MSRP ($160 vs $384), the Core i5-10400F is $224 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 129.3 pts/$ for the Core Ultra 7 265 — making the Core Ultra 7 265 the 45.5% better value option.