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 N2807 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 N2807 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 N2807

2014

Why buy it

✅Costs $53 less on MSRP ($107 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
✅Draws 4W instead of 65W, a 61W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), 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 Geekbench multi-core (320 vs 5,783).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 19.6 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($107 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +249.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Delivers 316.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 19.6 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $107 MSRP).
✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Celeron N2807.

Trade-offs

❌
49.5% HIGHER MSRP
$160 MSRPvs$107 MSRP
❌1525% higher power demand at 65W vs 4W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N2807 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-10400F better than Celeron N2807?

Yes. Core i5-10400F is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 249.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1707.2% better Geekbench multi-core, 522.5% higher 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 249.0% 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 1707.2% better Geekbench multi-core, 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 49.5% more expensive on MSRP at $160 MSRP versus $107 MSRP, and it still gives you a 249.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 316.3% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 19.6 PassMark/$), 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) 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 N2807 vs Core i5-10400F Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N2807

The Celeron N2807 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 23 February 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.58 GHz, with boost up to 2.16 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.3 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,093 points. Launch price was $107.

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 N2807 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 2.16 GHz on the Celeron N2807 versus 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F — a 66.3% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 1.58 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The Celeron N2807 uses the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the Core i5-10400F uses Comet Lake (2020−2025) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N2807 scores 2,093 against the Core i5-10400F's 13,029 — a 144.6% lead for the Core i5-10400F. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 180 vs 1,454, a 155.9% lead for the Core i5-10400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 320 vs 5,783 (179% advantage for the Core i5-10400F). L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron N2807 vs 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F.

Feature	Celeron N2807	Core i5-10400F
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	6 / 12+200%
Boost Clock	2.16 GHz	4.3 GHz+99%
Base Clock	1.58 GHz	2.9 GHz+84%
L3 Cache	0 kB	12 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+100%	256K (per core)
Process	22 nm	14 nm-36%
Architecture	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)	Comet Lake (2020−2025)
PassMark	2,093	13,029+523%
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	8,191
Geekbench 6 Single	180	1,454+708%
Geekbench 6 Multi	320	5,783+1707%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N2807 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core i5-10400F uses LGA1200 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1333 on the Celeron N2807 versus DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F — the Core i5-10400F supports 100% 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 N2807) vs 2 (Core i5-10400F). PCIe lanes: 4 (Celeron N2807) vs 16 (Core i5-10400F) — the Core i5-10400F offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SoC (Celeron N2807) and H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F).

Feature	Celeron N2807	Core i5-10400F
Socket	FCBGA1170	LGA1200
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333	DDR4-2666+100%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	128 GB+3100%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	16+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron N2807) vs VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F). The Celeron N2807 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N2807 targets Netbook, Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Celeron N2807 rivals AMD E1-6010; Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Celeron N2807	Core i5-10400F
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)	—
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Netbook	Gaming

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron N2807 was priced at $107, while the Core i5-10400F came in at $160. On launch pricing ($107 vs $160), Celeron N2807 was $53 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron N2807 delivers 19.6 pts/$ vs 81.4 pts/$ for the Core i5-10400F — making the Core i5-10400F the 122.5% better value option.

Feature	Celeron N2807	Core i5-10400F
MSRP	$107-33%	$160
Performance per Dollar	19.6	81.4+315%
Release Date	2014	2020

Search Celeron N2807 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.