
Atom x7-E3950

Core i5-10400F
Atom x7-E3950 vs Core i5-10400F Performance Spectrum
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.
Atom x7-E3950 vs Core i5-10400F FPS Benchmarks
Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.
Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Atom x7-E3950 vs Core i5-10400F: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
Atom x7-E3950
2016Why buy it
- ✅Draws 12W instead of 65W, a 53W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 505, while Core i5-10400F needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (1,864 vs 13,029).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +284.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 6) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Atom x7-E3950.
Trade-offs
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Atom x7-E3950 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌441.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 12W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Atom x7-E3950 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i5-10400F better than Atom x7-E3950?
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?
Atom x7-E3950 vs Core i5-10400F Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Atom x7-E3950
The Atom x7-E3950 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB (total). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1296. Thermal design power (TDP): 12 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,864 points. Launch price was $57.

Core i5-10400F
The Core i5-10400F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 April 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 4.3 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1200. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 13,029 points. Launch price was $155.
Processing Power
The Atom x7-E3950 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core i5-10400F offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Core i5-10400F has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Atom x7-E3950 versus 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F — a 73% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 1.6 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The Atom x7-E3950 uses the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i5-10400F uses Comet Lake (2020−2025) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Atom x7-E3950 scores 1,864 against the Core i5-10400F's 13,029 — a 149.9% lead for the Core i5-10400F. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 245 vs 1,454, a 142.3% lead for the Core i5-10400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom x7-E3950 vs 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F.
| Feature | Atom x7-E3950 | Core i5-10400F |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 4 / 4 | 6 / 12+50% |
| Boost Clock | 2 GHz | 4.3 GHz+115% |
| Base Clock | 1.6 GHz | 2.9 GHz+81% |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 12 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB (total) | 256K (per core)+12700% |
| Process | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Apollo Lake (2014−2016) | Comet Lake (2020−2025) |
| PassMark | 1,864 | 13,029+599% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | — | 8,191 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 245 | 1,454+493% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 5,783 |
Memory & Platform
The Atom x7-E3950 uses the FCBGA1296 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i5-10400F uses LGA1200 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches LPDDR4-2400 on the Atom x7-E3950 versus DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F — the Core i5-10400F supports 11.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i5-10400F supports up to 128 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 1500% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 4 (Atom x7-E3950) vs 2 (Core i5-10400F). PCIe lanes: 6 (Atom x7-E3950) vs 16 (Core i5-10400F) — the Core i5-10400F offers 10 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Apollo Lake (Atom x7-E3950) and H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F).
| Feature | Atom x7-E3950 | Core i5-10400F |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FCBGA1296 | LGA1200 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | LPDDR4-2400 | DDR4-2666+11% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB | 128 GB+1500% |
| RAM Channels | 4+100% | 2 |
| ECC Support | Yes | No |
| PCIe Lanes | 6 | 16+167% |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Atom x7-E3950 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 505), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.
| Feature | Atom x7-E3950 | Core i5-10400F |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | HD Graphics 505 | — |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | — | Gaming |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













