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.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Why buy it

✅Costs $102 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $262 MSRP).
✅Delivers 9.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 74.5 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $262 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i5-11600K.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-11600K across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 19,520).
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i5-11600K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i5-11600K

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +35.2% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅25% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 750, while Core i5-10400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 74.5 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($262 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Core i5-11600K

2021

Why buy it

✅Costs $102 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $262 MSRP).
✅Delivers 9.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 74.5 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $262 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i5-11600K.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +35.2% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅25% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 750, while Core i5-10400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-11600K across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 19,520).
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i5-11600K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 74.5 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($262 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-11600K better than Core i5-10400F?

Yes. Core i5-11600K is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 35.2% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data, 49.8% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i5-11600K is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 35.2% more average FPS across 2 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-11600K is the better fit. You are getting 49.8% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads.

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

Core i5-11600K is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core i5-11600K is 63.7% more expensive on MSRP at $262 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 35.2% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 9.3% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 74.5 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Core i5-11600K is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2021 vs 2020) and more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 12 threads instead of 6/12. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core i5-10400F Benchmark Check

Core i5-11600K Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i5-11600K
1080p
low	192 FPS	301 FPS
medium	152 FPS	263 FPS
high	123 FPS	221 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	189 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	247 FPS
medium	119 FPS	195 FPS
high	97 FPS	159 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	140 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	170 FPS
medium	70 FPS	136 FPS
high	55 FPS	105 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	92 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i5-11600K

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i5-11600K
1080p
low	326 FPS	480 FPS
medium	318 FPS	380 FPS
high	290 FPS	338 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	295 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	413 FPS
medium	292 FPS	332 FPS
high	267 FPS	301 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	262 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	343 FPS
medium	258 FPS	279 FPS
high	235 FPS	254 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	214 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i5-11600K

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i5-11600K
1080p
low	326 FPS	488 FPS
medium	326 FPS	488 FPS
high	326 FPS	488 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	488 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	488 FPS
medium	326 FPS	488 FPS
high	326 FPS	488 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	451 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	488 FPS
medium	326 FPS	456 FPS
high	289 FPS	390 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	318 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i5-11600K

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i5-11600K
1080p
low	326 FPS	488 FPS
medium	326 FPS	488 FPS
high	326 FPS	488 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	488 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	488 FPS
medium	326 FPS	488 FPS
high	326 FPS	488 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	488 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	488 FPS
medium	326 FPS	488 FPS
high	326 FPS	488 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i5-11600K

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core i5-11600K

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.

Core i5-11600K

The Core i5-11600K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 16 March 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Rocket Lake (2021) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.9 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1200. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 19,520 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core i5-10400F and Core i5-11600K share an identical 6-core/12-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.9 GHz on the Core i5-11600K — a 13% clock advantage for the Core i5-11600K (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.9 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i5-11600K uses Rocket Lake (2021) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core i5-11600K's 19,520 — a 39.9% lead for the Core i5-11600K. Both processors carry 12 MB (total) of L3 cache.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i5-11600K
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	6 / 12
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	4.9 GHz+14%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.9 GHz+34%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	12 MB (total)
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256K (per core)
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Rocket Lake (2021)
PassMark	13,029	19,520+50%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the LGA1200 socket with PCIe 3.0. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. Both support up to 128 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 20 (Core i5-11600K) — the Core i5-11600K offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and Intel 500 series,Intel 400 series (Core i5-11600K).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i5-11600K
Socket	LGA1200	LGA1200
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-3200
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	128 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	20+25%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core i5-11600K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the Core i5-11600K supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core i5-11600K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 750), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Core i5-11600K targets Desktop. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i5-11600K
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	UHD Graphics 750
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Gaming	Desktop

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Core i5-11600K debuted at $262. On MSRP ($160 vs $262), the Core i5-10400F is $102 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 74.5 pts/$ for the Core i5-11600K — making the Core i5-10400F the 8.9% better value option.