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 i5-10400F vs Core i7-3820 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 i5-10400F vs Core i7-3820: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +58.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+20% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 10 MB).
✅Costs $126 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $286 MSRP).
✅Delivers 302.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 20.2 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $286 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 130W, a 65W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Core i7-3820

2012

Why buy it

✅150% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (5,787 vs 13,029).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (10 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 20.2 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($286 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌100% higher power demand at 130W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-10400F better than Core i7-3820?

Yes. Core i5-10400F is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 58.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 125.1% 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 58.1% 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 125.1% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 20% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 10 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 $126 cheaper on MSRP at $160 MSRP versus $286 MSRP, and it still gives you a 58.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 302.4% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 20.2 PassMark/$), 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 2012), 20% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 10 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 12 threads instead of 4/8. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i5-10400F vs Core i7-3820 Technical Specifications

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

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 i7-3820

The Core i7-3820 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in Fevereiro 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 10240 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,787 points. Launch price was $400.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core i7-3820 offers 4 cores / 8 threads — the Core i5-10400F has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.8 GHz on the Core i7-3820 — a 12.3% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i7-3820 uses Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core i7-3820's 5,787 — a 77% lead for the Core i5-10400F. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 624, a 79.9% lead for the Core i5-10400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 10240 kB (total) on the Core i7-3820.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-3820
Cores / Threads	6 / 12+50%	4 / 8
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+13%	3.8 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.6 GHz+24%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)+20%	10240 kB (total)
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013)
PassMark	13,029+125%	5,787
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454+133%	624
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i7-3820 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR3-1600 on the Core i7-3820 — 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 64 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 4 (Core i7-3820). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 40 (Core i7-3820) — the Core i7-3820 offers 24 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and X79 (Core i7-3820).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-3820
Socket	LGA1200	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666+67%	DDR3-1600
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+100%	64 GB
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	40+150%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core i7-3820 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i7-3820). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Core i7-3820 targets HEDT Desktop. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Core i7-3820 rivals FX-8350.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-3820
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d, EPT
Target Use	Gaming	HEDT Desktop

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i5-10400F was priced at $160, while the Core i7-3820 came in at $286. On launch pricing ($160 vs $286), Core i5-10400F was $126 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 20.2 pts/$ for the Core i7-3820 — making the Core i5-10400F the 120.4% better value option.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-3820
MSRP	$160-44%	$286
Performance per Dollar	81.4+303%	20.2
Release Date	2020	2012

Search Core i5-10400F on Amazon

Search Core i7-3820 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.