
Core i5-13400F
Popular choices:

Core Ultra 7 265F
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
- ✅Costs $173 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $369 MSRP).
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 7 265F.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265F across 10 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,211 vs 25,459).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 30 MB).
Core Ultra 7 265F
2025Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +27.6% higher average FPS across 10 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+50% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 20 MB).
- ✅20% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌88.3% HIGHER MSRP$369 MSRPvs$196 MSRP
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.
Core i5-13400F
2023Core Ultra 7 265F
2025Why buy it
- ✅Costs $173 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $369 MSRP).
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 7 265F.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +27.6% higher average FPS across 10 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+50% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 20 MB).
- ✅20% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265F across 10 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,211 vs 25,459).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 30 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌88.3% HIGHER MSRP$369 MSRPvs$196 MSRP
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Core Ultra 7 265F 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 265F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 171 FPS | 280 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 273 FPS |
| high | 132 FPS | 227 FPS |
| ultra | 112 FPS | 191 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 143 FPS | 226 FPS |
| medium | 123 FPS | 194 FPS |
| high | 99 FPS | 155 FPS |
| ultra | 84 FPS | 135 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 81 FPS | 151 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 129 FPS |
| high | 59 FPS | 99 FPS |
| ultra | 46 FPS | 87 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 7 265F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 545 FPS | 695 FPS |
| medium | 464 FPS | 593 FPS |
| high | 389 FPS | 498 FPS |
| ultra | 356 FPS | 448 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 458 FPS | 605 FPS |
| medium | 403 FPS | 539 FPS |
| high | 345 FPS | 452 FPS |
| ultra | 301 FPS | 384 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 280 FPS | 356 FPS |
| medium | 247 FPS | 324 FPS |
| high | 231 FPS | 305 FPS |
| ultra | 204 FPS | 266 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 7 265F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 530 FPS | 839 FPS |
| medium | 449 FPS | 685 FPS |
| high | 415 FPS | 610 FPS |
| ultra | 375 FPS | 522 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 490 FPS | 727 FPS |
| medium | 422 FPS | 596 FPS |
| high | 382 FPS | 519 FPS |
| ultra | 343 FPS | 441 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 393 FPS | 515 FPS |
| medium | 331 FPS | 434 FPS |
| high | 296 FPS | 394 FPS |
| ultra | 246 FPS | 336 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 7 265F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 995 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 901 FPS |
| high | 626 FPS | 782 FPS |
| ultra | 626 FPS | 709 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 626 FPS | 814 FPS |
| medium | 626 FPS | 724 FPS |
| high | 598 FPS | 627 FPS |
| ultra | 521 FPS | 555 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 535 FPS | 555 FPS |
| medium | 492 FPS | 501 FPS |
| high | 439 FPS | 449 FPS |
| ultra | 382 FPS | 396 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Core Ultra 7 265F

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 265F
Core Ultra 7 265F
The Core Ultra 7 265F 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: 49,161 points. Launch price was $379.
Processing Power
The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265F offers 20 cores / 20 threads — the Core Ultra 7 265F has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265F — a 14.1% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Core Ultra 7 265F uses Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Core Ultra 7 265F's 49,161 — a 65.1% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265F. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 16,211 vs 25,459 (44.4% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265F). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 3,000, a 21.9% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 20,000 (54.7% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265F). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 265F.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 7 265F |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 10 / 16 | 20 / 20+100% |
| Boost Clock | 4.6 GHz | 5.3 GHz+15% |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz+4% | 2.4 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 20 MB (total) | 30 MB (total)+50% |
| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core)+140% |
| Process | Intel 7 nm | 3 nm-57% |
| Architecture | Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| PassMark | 25,029 | 49,161+96% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 16,211 | 25,459+57% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,407 | 3,000+25% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 11,408 | 20,000+75% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Core Ultra 7 265F uses LGA1851 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 memory speed. The Core Ultra 7 265F supports up to 256 GB 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 i5-13400F) vs 24 (Core Ultra 7 265F) — the Core Ultra 7 265F offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and Z890,B860,H810 (Core Ultra 7 265F).
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 7 265F |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | LGA1851 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 | DDR5-6400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 192 GB | 256 GB+33% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | No |
| PCIe Lanes | 20 | 24+20% |
Advanced Features
Only the Core Ultra 7 265F has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, Core Ultra 7 265F targets High Performance Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 7 265F |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | — | None |
| Unlocked | No | Yes |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | Gaming | High Performance Gaming |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the Core Ultra 7 265F debuted at $369. On MSRP ($196 vs $369), the Core i5-13400F is $173 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 133.2 pts/$ for the Core Ultra 7 265F — making the Core Ultra 7 265F the 4.2% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Core Ultra 7 265F |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $196-47% | $369 |
| Performance per Dollar | 127.7 | 133.2+4% |
| Release Date | 2023 | 2025 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













