Core 7 160UL vs Core i5-10400F

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.

Core 7 160UL 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.

Core 7 160UL 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.

Core 7 160UL

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 15W instead of 65W, a 50W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (11,043 vs 13,029).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Why buy it

✅+18% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core 7 160UL.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core 7 160UL across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Core 7 160UL mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌333.3% higher power demand at 65W vs 15W.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Core 7 160UL moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core 7 160UL better than Core i5-10400F?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core 7 160UL is ahead with a 4.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-10400F pulls ahead with 18% better PassMark.

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 18% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads.

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

Core 7 160UL is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Core 7 160UL comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Core i5-10400F is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 18% better PassMark. Core i5-10400F is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper. That said, if you already own a compatible LGA1200 + DDR4 setup, Core i5-10400F can still make sense as a platform-matched option because it avoids a motherboard and RAM swap, but on MSRP alone you would want to find it meaningfully cheaper in real-world listings before that path becomes easy to justify.

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

Core 7 160UL makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2020) and a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

Core 7 160UL vs Core i5-10400F Technical Specifications

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

Core 7 160UL

The Core 7 160UL is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 8 April 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Raptor Lake-PS (2024) architecture. It features 10 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 5.2 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR4, DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 11,043 points. Launch price was $149.

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 Core 7 160UL packs 10 cores / 12 threads, while the Core i5-10400F offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Core 7 160UL has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.2 GHz on the Core 7 160UL versus 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F — a 18.9% clock advantage for the Core 7 160UL (base: 1.8 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The Core 7 160UL uses the Raptor Lake-PS (2024) architecture (10 nm), while the Core i5-10400F uses Comet Lake (2020−2025) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core 7 160UL scores 11,043 against the Core i5-10400F's 13,029 — a 16.5% lead for the Core i5-10400F. Both processors carry 12 MB (total) of L3 cache.

Feature	Core 7 160UL	Core i5-10400F
Cores / Threads	10 / 12+67%	6 / 12
Boost Clock	5.2 GHz+21%	4.3 GHz
Base Clock	1.8 GHz	2.9 GHz+61%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	12 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)	256K (per core)+20380%
Process	10 nm-29%	14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-PS (2024)	Comet Lake (2020−2025)
PassMark	11,043	13,029+18%
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	8,191
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,454
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	5,783

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core 7 160UL uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Core i5-10400F uses LGA1200 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core 7 160UL	Core i5-10400F
Socket	LGA1700	LGA1200
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+67%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR4-2666
Max RAM Capacity	—	128 GB
RAM Channels	—	2
ECC Support	—	No
PCIe Lanes	—	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Core 7 160UL) / VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.