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: +6.4% 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.

Core i9-13900F

2023

Core Ultra 7 265

2025

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.

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

❌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.

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 matters more to you. 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 better 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 smarter buy today. Core Ultra 7 265 is $140 cheaper on MSRP at $384 MSRP versus $524 MSRP, and it gives you 1.5% better PassMark. The trade-off is that Core i9-13900F is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 6.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 38.5% better value on MSRP (129.3 vs 93.4 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play 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 is the more future-proof choice 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 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 7 265 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i9-13900F	Core Ultra 7 265
1080p
low	321 FPS	280 FPS
medium	311 FPS	273 FPS
high	247 FPS	227 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	191 FPS
1440p
low	278 FPS	226 FPS
medium	240 FPS	194 FPS
high	178 FPS	155 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 7 265

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i9-13900F	Core Ultra 7 265
1080p
low	497 FPS	695 FPS
medium	434 FPS	593 FPS
high	354 FPS	498 FPS
ultra	313 FPS	448 FPS
1440p
low	422 FPS	605 FPS
medium	380 FPS	539 FPS
high	316 FPS	452 FPS
ultra	257 FPS	384 FPS
4K
low	236 FPS	356 FPS
medium	216 FPS	324 FPS
high	205 FPS	305 FPS
ultra	179 FPS	266 FPS

Open Core i9-13900F Open Core Ultra 7 265

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i9-13900F	Core Ultra 7 265
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 7 265

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i9-13900F	Core Ultra 7 265
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 7 265

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i9-13900F and Core Ultra 7 265

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 199.7% 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 192 GB — 28.6% 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+127900%
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+78643100%	256
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

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