Intel Core i7-13790F vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX Comparison

The Intel Core i7-13790F and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX represent two distinct design philosophies from Intel, separated by a generational gap and targeting different market segments. The i7-13790F is a 13th Gen desktop processor built on the Raptor Lake architecture, while the Ultra 7 255HX is a mobile-first Arrow Lake-HX chip. The benchmark data reveals a clear split: the desktop chip excels in legacy single-threaded workloads and specific integer tasks, whereas the mobile chip dominates in modern multi-threaded and vectorized applications. With the i7-13790F winning 6 of the 17 head-to-head tests and the Ultra 7 255HX winning 11, the choice hinges entirely on workload priority and platform requirements.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-13790F is the stronger choice for single-threaded responsiveness and specific legacy compute tasks. Its most dramatic victory is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 4998 against the Ultra 7’s 2163, a staggering 131.1% advantage. This pattern extends to Cinebench R15 single-core, where it leads 503 to 327 (53.8% faster). The desktop chip also wins decisively in PassMark integer math, posting 151416 versus 127126 (19.1% ahead), and in data compression, scoring 567473 against 515143 (10.2% higher). It also edges out a narrow win in PassMark physics, 3017 versus 2926 (3.1% ahead). These results point to a processor that retains exceptional per-core performance for older, less parallelized software.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX, conversely, is the dominant force in multi-threaded and modern instruction-heavy workloads. It wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by a wide margin, 4916 versus 3568 (27.4% faster), and Cinebench R20 multi-core, 17187 versus 14869 (13.5% faster). Its lead in floating-point math is substantial, 160624 versus 110512 (31.2% faster), and it crushes the i7-13790F in prime number finding, 400 versus 207 (48.2% faster). The Ultra 7 also takes PassMark multi-thread (48234 vs 44737, 7.3% ahead), single-thread (4562 vs 4212, 7.7% ahead), data encryption (39499 vs 31703, 19.7% ahead), extended instructions (41247 vs 34828, 15.6% ahead), and random string sorting (62591 vs 58607, 6.4% ahead). This is a chip built for throughput and modern instruction sets.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental split lies in their silicon. The i7-13790F is built on Intel’s 10 nm process node (Raptor Lake-S), featuring 16 cores and 24 threads. The Ultra 7 255HX uses TSMC’s 3 nm node (Arrow Lake-HX) and packs 20 cores but only 20 threads, indicating a different core configuration without hyper-threading on all cores. The transistor counts reflect this gap: the Ultra 7 carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the i7-13790F’s die size is 257 mm² with no transistor count listed.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The i7-13790F offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a larger 33 MB shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7 provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, but a slightly smaller 30 MB shared L3. This suggests the Ultra 7 relies on faster per-core caches and a more advanced node to compensate for less total L3. Memory support also diverges: the i7-13790F supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 supports only DDR5, with a listed memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. Both use a dual-channel bus, but the mobile Ultra 7 integrates Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, while the i7-13790F has no integrated graphics. The i7-13790F is a desktop Socket 1700 part with a 65 W TDP, whereas the Ultra 7 is a mobile BGA 2114 chip with a 55 W TDP. The Ultra 7 also features an unlocked multiplier, unlike the locked i7-13790F.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite illustrates the architectural split perfectly. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 7 wins decisively, 4916 versus 3568, a 27.4% gap in its favor. However, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the tables turn: the i7-13790F scores 35404 against the Ultra 7’s 32612, an 8.6% win for the desktop chip. This inconsistency suggests R15 scales better with the Ultra 7’s core count, while R23 may favor the i7-13790F’s higher thread count (24 vs 20) or larger L3 cache. Single-core results are even more polarized: the i7-13790F wins R15 single-core by 53.8% (503 vs 327) and R23 single-core by a massive 131.1% (4998 vs 2163). Yet in R20 single-core, the Ultra 7 wins 2426 versus 2099, a 13.5% margin, indicating that the older R15 and R23 tests may not reflect the Ultra 7’s optimized performance in newer benchmarks.

PassMark results reinforce the Ultra 7’s multi-threaded and vectorized strengths. Floating-point math shows a 31.2% lead for the Ultra 7 (160624 vs 110512), and prime number finding shows a 48.2% lead (400 vs 207). Data encryption is 19.7% faster on the Ultra 7 (39499 vs 31703), and extended instructions are 15.6% faster (41247 vs 34828). Conversely, the i7-13790F dominates integer math (151416 vs 127126, 19.1% ahead) and data compression (567473 vs 515143, 10.2% ahead). The Ultra 7 also wins overall multi-thread (48234 vs 44737, 7.3%) and single-thread (4562 vs 4212, 7.7%) scores, but the i7-13790F takes PassMark physics narrowly, 3017 versus 2926 (3.1% ahead).

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for specific use cases. The Intel Core i7-13790F is the pick for users running legacy software, single-threaded applications, or integer-heavy workloads like data compression and physics simulations. Its 131.1% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 19.1% lead in integer math are not marginal; they are decisive for older codebases. The larger 33 MB L3 cache and 24 threads also give it a slight edge in Cinebench R23 multi-core, making it a capable desktop option for mixed workloads that still rely on older instruction paths.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX is the superior choice for modern, highly parallelized workloads, floating-point math, encryption, and any task that benefits from the 3 nm process and 20-core configuration. Its 31.2% lead in floating-point math, 48.2% lead in prime number finding, and 19.7% lead in encryption make it the clear winner for scientific computing, video encoding, and security-related tasks. Its higher PassMark multi-thread (48234) and single-thread (4562) scores also suggest it is better optimized for current benchmark suites. The Ultra 7’s 55 W TDP and integrated graphics add mobility advantages, though its lower L3 cache (30 MB) and lack of DDR4 support may deter some upgraders.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i7-13790F wins decisively, scoring 4998 against the Ultra 7 255HX’s 2163, a 131.1% advantage.

Q: How does the multi-threaded performance compare in Cinebench R15?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX wins, scoring 4916 versus the i7-13790F’s 3568, which is a 27.4% lead for the Ultra 7.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The i7-13790F has 16 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra 7 255HX has 20 cores and 20 threads.

Q: Which CPU performs better in floating-point math?

A: The Ultra 7 255HX is significantly faster, scoring 160624 in PassMark floating-point math versus the i7-13790F’s 110512, a 31.2% difference.

Q: Does the Ultra 7 255HX have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, while the i7-13790F has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The i7-13790F has a 65 W TDP, while the Ultra 7 255HX has a lower 55 W TDP.