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

2023

Why buy it

✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 7 265H.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265H across 9 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 34,702).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 24 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $196 MSRP, while Core Ultra 7 265H mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌150% higher power demand at 65W vs 26W.

Core Ultra 7 265H

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +44.1% higher average FPS across 9 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+20% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Draws 26W instead of 65W, a 39W reduction.
✅40% more PCIe lanes (28 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc 140T GPU, while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Core Ultra 7 265H

2025

Why buy it

✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 7 265H.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +44.1% higher average FPS across 9 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+20% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Draws 26W instead of 65W, a 39W reduction.
✅40% more PCIe lanes (28 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc 140T GPU, while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265H across 9 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 34,702).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 24 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $196 MSRP, while Core Ultra 7 265H mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌150% higher power demand at 65W vs 26W.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 7 265H better than Core i5-13400F?

Yes. Core Ultra 7 265H is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 44.1% average FPS lead across 9 shared CPU game tests in our data, 38.6% 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 265H is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 44.1% more average FPS across 9 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 265H is the better fit. You are getting 38.6% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 20% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 20 MB).

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

Core Ultra 7 265H is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-13400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core Ultra 7 265H is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $196 MSRP, and it gives you a 44.1% average FPS lead across 9 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-13400F is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Core Ultra 7 265H is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2023), 20% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 20 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 16 cores / 16 threads instead of 10/16. 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 i5-13400F Benchmark Check

Core Ultra 7 265H Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 265H
1080p
low	171 FPS	310 FPS
medium	158 FPS	280 FPS
high	132 FPS	234 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	199 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	252 FPS
medium	123 FPS	202 FPS
high	99 FPS	164 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	143 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	174 FPS
medium	74 FPS	140 FPS
high	59 FPS	108 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	94 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core Ultra 7 265H

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 265H
1080p
low	545 FPS	851 FPS
medium	464 FPS	656 FPS
high	389 FPS	532 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	468 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	723 FPS
medium	403 FPS	585 FPS
high	345 FPS	478 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	396 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	422 FPS
medium	247 FPS	349 FPS
high	231 FPS	319 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	274 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core Ultra 7 265H

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 265H
1080p
low	530 FPS	868 FPS
medium	449 FPS	868 FPS
high	415 FPS	780 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	662 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	868 FPS
medium	422 FPS	735 FPS
high	382 FPS	635 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	544 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	642 FPS
medium	331 FPS	534 FPS
high	296 FPS	483 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	409 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core Ultra 7 265H

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 265H
1080p
low	626 FPS	868 FPS
medium	626 FPS	868 FPS
high	626 FPS	868 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	783 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	868 FPS
medium	626 FPS	804 FPS
high	598 FPS	704 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	610 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	613 FPS
medium	492 FPS	541 FPS
high	439 FPS	489 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	428 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Core Ultra 7 265H

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Core Ultra 7 265H

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 265H

The Core Ultra 7 265H is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-H (2025) architecture. It features 16 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 4.5 GHz, with boost up to 5.3 GHz. L3 cache: 24 MB. Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2049. Thermal design power (TDP): 26 MB + 24 MB. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 34,702 points. Launch price was $471.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265H offers 16 cores / 16 threads — the Core Ultra 7 265H has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265H — a 14.1% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265H (base: 2.5 GHz vs 4.5 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Core Ultra 7 265H uses Arrow Lake-H (2025) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Core Ultra 7 265H's 34,702 — a 32.4% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265H. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 24 MB on the Core Ultra 7 265H.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 265H
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	16 / 16+60%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz	5.3 GHz+15%
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	4.5 GHz+80%
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	24 MB+20%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)	—
Process	Intel 7 nm	5 nm-29%
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Arrow Lake-H (2025)
PassMark	25,029	34,702+39%
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 265H uses FCBGA2049 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-13400F versus 8400 on the Core Ultra 7 265H — the Core Ultra 7 265H supports 199.8% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i5-13400F supports up to 192 GB of RAM compared to 128 — 40% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 28 (Core Ultra 7 265H) — the Core Ultra 7 265H offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and BGA 2049 (Core Ultra 7 265H).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Core Ultra 7 265H
Socket	LGA1700	FCBGA2049
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	8400+167900%
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+157286300%	128
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	20	28+40%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Core Ultra 7 265H supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core Ultra 7 265H includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc 140T GPU), while the Core i5-13400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; Core Ultra 7 265H rivals Ryzen AI 9 HX 370.