Celeron 2981U vs Core i5-10400F

CPU

GPU

Celeron 2981U

2 Cores2 Thrd512 WWMax: 1.6 GHz2014

Buy on Amazon

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Buy on Amazon

Celeron 2981U vs Core i5-10400F Performance Spectrum

Celeron 2981U

2 / 2

1,036

0.0%

13,029

+1157.6%

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.

Celeron 2981U 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 2981U 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 2981U

2014

Why buy it

✅Costs $23 less on MSRP ($137 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Haswell), 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 (1,036 vs 13,029).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 7.6 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($137 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌687.7% higher power demand at 512W vs 65W.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +587.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+500% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 2 MB).
✅Delivers 976.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 7.6 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $137 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 512W, a 447W reduction.
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 12) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌
16.8% HIGHER MSRP
$160 MSRPvs$137 MSRP
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 2981U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-10400F better than Celeron 2981U?

Yes. Core i5-10400F is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 587.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1157.6% 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 587.1% 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 1157.6% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 500% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 2 MB).

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 16.8% more expensive on MSRP at $160 MSRP versus $137 MSRP, and it still gives you a 587.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 976.8% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 7.6 PassMark/$), 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 2014), 500% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 2 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 12 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 2981U vs Core i5-10400F Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 2981U

The Celeron 2981U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,036 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 2981U packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Core i5-10400F offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Core i5-10400F has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Celeron 2981U versus 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F — a 91.5% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 1.6 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The Celeron 2981U uses the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture (22 nm), while the Core i5-10400F uses Comet Lake (2020−2025) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 2981U scores 1,036 against the Core i5-10400F's 13,029 — a 170.5% lead for the Core i5-10400F. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron 2981U vs 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F.

Feature	Celeron 2981U	Core i5-10400F
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	6 / 12+200%
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	4.3 GHz+169%
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	2.9 GHz+81%
L3 Cache	2 MB	12 MB (total)+500%
L2 Cache	512 kB+100%	256K (per core)
Process	22 nm	14 nm-36%
Architecture	Haswell (2013−2015)	Comet Lake (2020−2025)
PassMark	1,036	13,029+1158%
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	8,191
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,454
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	5,783

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 2981U uses the FCBGA1168 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 DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 2981U versus DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F — the Core i5-10400F supports 66.6% 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 16 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 12 (Celeron 2981U) vs 16 (Core i5-10400F) — the Core i5-10400F offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Wildcat Point-LP (Celeron 2981U) and H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F).

Feature	Celeron 2981U	Core i5-10400F
Socket	FCBGA1168	LGA1200
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600	DDR4-2666+67%
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	128 GB+700%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	12	16+33%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron 2981U) vs VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F). The Celeron 2981U includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Haswell)), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 2981U targets Budget, Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Celeron 2981U rivals Pentium 2117U; Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Celeron 2981U	Core i5-10400F
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	HD Graphics (Haswell)	—
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Budget	Gaming

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron 2981U was priced at $137, while the Core i5-10400F came in at $160. On launch pricing ($137 vs $160), Celeron 2981U was $23 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 2981U delivers 7.6 pts/$ vs 81.4 pts/$ for the Core i5-10400F — making the Core i5-10400F the 166% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 2981U	Core i5-10400F
MSRP	$137-14%	$160
Performance per Dollar	7.6	81.4+971%
Release Date	2014	2020

Search Celeron 2981U 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.