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

✅+25% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 16 MB).
✅Costs $3 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 7 260.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 260 across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 28,339).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 127.7 vs 142.4 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
❌44.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 45W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Ryzen 7 260 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Ryzen 7 260

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +31.4% higher average FPS across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Delivers 11.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 142.4 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($199 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
✅Draws 45W instead of 65W, a 20W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon 780M, while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 20 MB).
❌
1.5% HIGHER MSRP
$199 MSRPvs$196 MSRP
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Ryzen 7 260

2025

Why buy it

✅+25% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 16 MB).
✅Costs $3 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 7 260.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +31.4% higher average FPS across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Delivers 11.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 142.4 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($199 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
✅Draws 45W instead of 65W, a 20W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon 780M, while Core i5-13400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 260 across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 28,339).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 127.7 vs 142.4 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
❌44.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 45W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Ryzen 7 260 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 20 MB).
❌
1.5% HIGHER MSRP
$199 MSRPvs$196 MSRP
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 7 260 better than Core i5-13400F?

Yes. Ryzen 7 260 is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 31.4% average FPS lead across 8 shared CPU game tests in our data, 13.2% 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, Ryzen 7 260 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 31.4% more average FPS across 8 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen 7 260 is the better fit. You are getting 13.2% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads.

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

Ryzen 7 260 is the smarter buy today. Ryzen 7 260 is 1.5% more expensive on MSRP at $199 MSRP versus $196 MSRP, and it gives you a 31.4% average FPS lead across 8 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 11.5% better value on MSRP (142.4 vs 127.7 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

Ryzen 7 260 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 8 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

Ryzen 7 260 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen 7 260
1080p
low	171 FPS	265 FPS
medium	158 FPS	240 FPS
high	132 FPS	202 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	174 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	234 FPS
medium	123 FPS	192 FPS
high	99 FPS	156 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	138 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	162 FPS
medium	74 FPS	135 FPS
high	59 FPS	104 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	91 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Ryzen 7 260

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen 7 260
1080p
low	545 FPS	486 FPS
medium	464 FPS	399 FPS
high	389 FPS	341 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	304 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	424 FPS
medium	403 FPS	367 FPS
high	345 FPS	314 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	267 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	280 FPS
medium	247 FPS	253 FPS
high	231 FPS	237 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	204 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Ryzen 7 260

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen 7 260
1080p
low	530 FPS	708 FPS
medium	449 FPS	708 FPS
high	415 FPS	708 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	623 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	708 FPS
medium	422 FPS	644 FPS
high	382 FPS	544 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	467 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	540 FPS
medium	331 FPS	474 FPS
high	296 FPS	421 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	357 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Ryzen 7 260

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen 7 260
1080p
low	626 FPS	708 FPS
medium	626 FPS	708 FPS
high	626 FPS	708 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	708 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	708 FPS
medium	626 FPS	708 FPS
high	598 FPS	657 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	572 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	574 FPS
medium	492 FPS	511 FPS
high	439 FPS	455 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	393 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Ryzen 7 260

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Ryzen 7 260

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.

Ryzen 7 260

The Ryzen 7 260 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 6 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Hawk Point (2024−2025) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.8 GHz, with boost up to 5.1 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: FP8. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 28,339 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Ryzen 7 260 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Core i5-13400F has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 5.1 GHz on the Ryzen 7 260 — a 10.3% clock advantage for the Ryzen 7 260 (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.8 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Ryzen 7 260 uses Hawk Point (2024−2025) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Ryzen 7 260's 28,339 — a 12.4% lead for the Ryzen 7 260. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 16 MB (total) on the Ryzen 7 260.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen 7 260
Cores / Threads	10 / 16+25%	8 / 16
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz	5.1 GHz+11%
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	3.8 GHz+52%
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)+25%	16 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)+25%	1 MB (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm	4 nm-43%
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Hawk Point (2024−2025)
PassMark	25,029	28,339+13%
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 Ryzen 7 260 uses FP8 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 memory speed. The Core i5-13400F supports up to 192 GB of RAM compared to 64 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 20 PCIe lanes.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen 7 260
Socket	LGA1700	FP8
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	DDR5-5600
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+200%	64 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	20	20

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Ryzen 7 260 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F) vs AMD-V (Ryzen 7 260). The Ryzen 7 260 includes integrated graphics (Radeon 780M), while the Core i5-13400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, Ryzen 7 260 targets Mobile. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Ryzen 7 260
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	Radeon 780M
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V
Target Use	Gaming	Mobile

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the Ryzen 7 260 debuted at $199. On MSRP ($196 vs $199), the Core i5-13400F is $3 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 142.4 pts/$ for the Ryzen 7 260 — making the Ryzen 7 260 the 10.9% better value option.