
Core 7 160UL
Popular choices:

Core i5-12400F
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 7 160UL
2024Why buy it
- ✅Draws 15W instead of 65W, a 50W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-12400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (11,043 vs 19,532).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 18 MB).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-12400F.
Core i5-12400F
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +59.2% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+50% larger total L3 cache (18 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core 7 160UL.
Trade-offs
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $174 MSRP, while Core 7 160UL mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌333.3% higher power demand at 65W vs 15W.
Core 7 160UL
2024Core i5-12400F
2022Why buy it
- ✅Draws 15W instead of 65W, a 50W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +59.2% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+50% larger total L3 cache (18 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core 7 160UL.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-12400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (11,043 vs 19,532).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 18 MB).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-12400F.
Trade-offs
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $174 MSRP, while Core 7 160UL mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌333.3% higher power demand at 65W vs 15W.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i5-12400F better than Core 7 160UL?
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 7 160UL | Core i5-12400F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 262 FPS | 183 FPS |
| medium | 234 FPS | 168 FPS |
| high | 200 FPS | 139 FPS |
| ultra | 171 FPS | 119 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 224 FPS | 153 FPS |
| medium | 180 FPS | 132 FPS |
| high | 149 FPS | 106 FPS |
| ultra | 131 FPS | 89 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 157 FPS | 87 FPS |
| medium | 127 FPS | 81 FPS |
| high | 98 FPS | 64 FPS |
| ultra | 85 FPS | 49 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core 7 160UL | Core i5-12400F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 228 FPS | 471 FPS |
| medium | 193 FPS | 397 FPS |
| high | 175 FPS | 341 FPS |
| ultra | 154 FPS | 301 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 204 FPS | 407 FPS |
| medium | 179 FPS | 351 FPS |
| high | 162 FPS | 309 FPS |
| ultra | 137 FPS | 265 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 152 FPS | 282 FPS |
| medium | 140 FPS | 248 FPS |
| high | 133 FPS | 229 FPS |
| ultra | 114 FPS | 196 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core 7 160UL | Core i5-12400F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 276 FPS | 488 FPS |
| medium | 276 FPS | 488 FPS |
| high | 276 FPS | 488 FPS |
| ultra | 276 FPS | 488 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 276 FPS | 488 FPS |
| medium | 276 FPS | 488 FPS |
| high | 276 FPS | 485 FPS |
| ultra | 276 FPS | 434 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 276 FPS | 442 FPS |
| medium | 276 FPS | 389 FPS |
| high | 276 FPS | 337 FPS |
| ultra | 276 FPS | 274 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core 7 160UL | Core i5-12400F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 276 FPS | 488 FPS |
| medium | 276 FPS | 488 FPS |
| high | 276 FPS | 488 FPS |
| ultra | 276 FPS | 488 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 276 FPS | 488 FPS |
| medium | 276 FPS | 488 FPS |
| high | 276 FPS | 488 FPS |
| ultra | 276 FPS | 473 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 276 FPS | 488 FPS |
| medium | 276 FPS | 450 FPS |
| high | 276 FPS | 391 FPS |
| ultra | 276 FPS | 330 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core 7 160UL and Core i5-12400F

Core 7 160UL
Core 7 160UL
The Core 7 160UL is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 8 April 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Raptor Lake-PS (2024) architecture. It features 10 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 5.2 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR4, DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 11,043 points. Launch price was $149.

Core i5-12400F
Core i5-12400F
The Core i5-12400F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 18 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: DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 19,532 points. Launch price was $180.
Processing Power
The Core 7 160UL packs 10 cores / 12 threads, while the Core i5-12400F offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Core 7 160UL has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.2 GHz on the Core 7 160UL versus 4.4 GHz on the Core i5-12400F — a 16.7% clock advantage for the Core 7 160UL (base: 1.8 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core 7 160UL uses the Raptor Lake-PS (2024) architecture (10 nm), while the Core i5-12400F uses Alder Lake-S (2022) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the Core 7 160UL scores 11,043 against the Core i5-12400F's 19,532 — a 55.5% lead for the Core i5-12400F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core 7 160UL vs 18 MB (total) on the Core i5-12400F.
| Feature | Core 7 160UL | Core i5-12400F |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 10 / 12+67% | 6 / 12 |
| Boost Clock | 5.2 GHz+18% | 4.4 GHz |
| Base Clock | 1.8 GHz | 2.5 GHz+39% |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 18 MB (total)+50% |
| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |
| Process | 10 nm | Intel 7 nm-30% |
| Architecture | Raptor Lake-PS (2024) | Alder Lake-S (2022) |
| PassMark | 11,043 | 19,532+77% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | — | 12,380 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 1,700 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 657 |
Memory & Platform
Both processors use the LGA1700 socket with PCIe 5.0.
| Feature | Core 7 160UL | Core i5-12400F |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | LGA1700 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+67% | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | — | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 |
| Max RAM Capacity | — | 128 GB |
| RAM Channels | — | 2 |
| ECC Support | — | No |
| PCIe Lanes | — | 20 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Core 7 160UL) / VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i5-12400F). Primary use case: Core i5-12400F targets Gaming Performance/Value. Direct competitor: Core i5-12400F rivals Ryzen 5 5600.
| Feature | Core 7 160UL | Core i5-12400F |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | VT-x, VT-d, EPT |
| Target Use | — | Gaming Performance/Value |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













