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.

Celeron 220 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.

Celeron 220 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.

Celeron 220

2007

Why buy it

✅Costs $118 less on MSRP ($42 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (320 vs 13,029).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 7.6 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($42 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌687.7% higher power demand at 512W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +2061.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Delivers 968.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 7.6 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $42 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 512W, a 447W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Celeron 220.

Trade-offs

❌
281% HIGHER MSRP
$160 MSRPvs$42 MSRP

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-10400F better than Celeron 220?

Yes. Core i5-10400F is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2061.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 3971.6% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i5-10400F is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2061.0% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-10400F is the stronger fit. You are getting 3971.6% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads.

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

Core i5-10400F is the better buy right now. Core i5-10400F comes in 281.0% more expensive on MSRP at $160 MSRP versus $42 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2061.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 968.8% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 7.6 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Core i5-10400F makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2007) and more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 12 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 220 vs Core i5-10400F Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Celeron 220

The Celeron 220 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Conroe (2006−2007) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 1.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: BGA479. Thermal design power (TDP): 19 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 320 points. Launch price was $69.

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 Celeron 220 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Core i5-10400F offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Core i5-10400F has 5 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.2 GHz on the Celeron 220 versus 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F — a 112.7% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 1.2 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The Celeron 220 uses the Conroe (2006−2007) architecture (65 nm), while the Core i5-10400F uses Comet Lake (2020−2025) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 220 scores 320 against the Core i5-10400F's 13,029 — a 190.4% lead for the Core i5-10400F. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron 220 vs 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F.

Feature	Celeron 220	Core i5-10400F
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	6 / 12+500%
Boost Clock	1.2 GHz	4.3 GHz+258%
Base Clock	1.2 GHz	2.9 GHz+142%
L3 Cache	0 kB	12 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512 kB+100%	256K (per core)
Process	65 nm	14 nm-78%
Architecture	Conroe (2006−2007)	Comet Lake (2020−2025)
PassMark	320	13,029+3972%
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	8,191
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,454
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	5,783

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 220 uses the BGA479 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core i5-10400F uses LGA1200 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-667 on the Celeron 220 versus DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F — the Core i5-10400F supports 299.7% 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 4 GB — 3100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Celeron 220) vs 2 (Core i5-10400F). PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron 220) vs 16 (Core i5-10400F) — the Core i5-10400F offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: 945G,G31,G41 (Celeron 220) and H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F).

Feature	Celeron 220	Core i5-10400F
Socket	BGA479	LGA1200
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 3.0+173%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-667	DDR4-2666+300%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	128 GB+3100%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: No (Celeron 220) vs VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F). Primary use case: Celeron 220 targets Budget, Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Celeron 220 rivals Athlon 64 3100+; Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Celeron 220	Core i5-10400F
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	No	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Budget	Gaming

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron 220 was priced at $42, while the Core i5-10400F came in at $160. On launch pricing ($42 vs $160), Celeron 220 was $118 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 220 delivers 7.6 pts/$ vs 81.4 pts/$ for the Core i5-10400F — making the Core i5-10400F the 165.8% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 220	Core i5-10400F
MSRP	$42-74%	$160
Performance per Dollar	7.6	81.4+971%
Release Date	2007	2020

Search Celeron 220 on Amazon

Search Core i5-10400F on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.