Core i5-10400F vs Core i7-4800MQ

Intel

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

VS
Intel

Core i7-4800MQ

4 Cores8 Thrd47 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2013

Popular choices:

Performance Spectrum - CPU

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.

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

  • Better for gaming: +95.1% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
  • +50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
  • Costs $220 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $380 MSRP).
  • Delivers 436.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 15.2 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $380 MSRP).
  • 100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

  • 38.3% higher power demand at 65W vs 47W.

Core i7-4800MQ

2013

Why buy it

  • Draws 47W instead of 65W, a 18W reduction.

Trade-offs

  • Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
  • Lower PassMark (5,773 vs 13,029).
  • Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
  • Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.2 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($380 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
  • No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-10400F better than Core i7-4800MQ?
Yes. Core i5-10400F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 95.1% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data, 125.7% 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 i5-10400F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 95.1% more average FPS across 4 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 better fit. You are getting 125.7% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Core i5-10400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-10400F is $220 cheaper on MSRP at $160 MSRP versus $380 MSRP, and it gives you a 95.1% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 436.0% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 15.2 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Core i5-10400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2013), 50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 12 threads instead of 4/8. 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.

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

PresetCore i5-10400FCore i7-4800MQ
1080p
low192 FPS144 FPS
medium152 FPS144 FPS
high123 FPS115 FPS
ultra100 FPS92 FPS
1440p
low153 FPS144 FPS
medium119 FPS121 FPS
high97 FPS95 FPS
ultra79 FPS76 FPS
4K
low82 FPS68 FPS
medium70 FPS61 FPS
high55 FPS48 FPS
ultra43 FPS38 FPS
Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

PresetCore i5-10400FCore i7-4800MQ
1080p
low326 FPS144 FPS
medium318 FPS144 FPS
high290 FPS144 FPS
ultra253 FPS135 FPS
1440p
low326 FPS144 FPS
medium292 FPS144 FPS
high267 FPS144 FPS
ultra234 FPS121 FPS
4K
low309 FPS143 FPS
medium258 FPS128 FPS
high235 FPS107 FPS
ultra199 FPS81 FPS
League of Legends

League of Legends

PresetCore i5-10400FCore i7-4800MQ
1080p
low326 FPS144 FPS
medium326 FPS144 FPS
high326 FPS144 FPS
ultra326 FPS144 FPS
1440p
low326 FPS144 FPS
medium326 FPS144 FPS
high326 FPS144 FPS
ultra326 FPS144 FPS
4K
low326 FPS144 FPS
medium326 FPS144 FPS
high289 FPS144 FPS
ultra229 FPS144 FPS
Valorant

Valorant

PresetCore i5-10400FCore i7-4800MQ
1080p
low326 FPS144 FPS
medium326 FPS144 FPS
high326 FPS144 FPS
ultra326 FPS144 FPS
1440p
low326 FPS144 FPS
medium326 FPS144 FPS
high326 FPS144 FPS
ultra326 FPS144 FPS
4K
low326 FPS144 FPS
medium326 FPS144 FPS
high326 FPS144 FPS
ultra326 FPS144 FPS

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core i7-4800MQ

Intel

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.

Intel

Core i7-4800MQ

The Core i7-4800MQ is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 29 April 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA946. Thermal design power (TDP): 47 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,773 points. Launch price was $378.

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core i7-4800MQ 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 3.7 GHz on the Core i7-4800MQ — a 15% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i7-4800MQ uses Haswell (2013−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core i7-4800MQ's 5,773 — a 77.2% lead for the Core i5-10400F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 8 MB (total) on the Core i7-4800MQ.

FeatureCore i5-10400FCore i7-4800MQ
Cores / Threads
6 / 12+50%
4 / 8
Boost Clock
4.3 GHz+16%
3.7 GHz
Base Clock
2.9 GHz+7%
2.7 GHz
L3 Cache
12 MB (total)+50%
8 MB (total)
L2 Cache
256K (per core)
256K (per core)
Process
14 nm-36%
22 nm
Architecture
Comet Lake (2020−2025)
Haswell (2013−2015)
PassMark
13,029+126%
5,773
Cinebench R23 Multi
8,191
Geekbench 6 Single
1,454
Geekbench 6 Multi
5,783
🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i7-4800MQ uses PGA946 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

FeatureCore i5-10400FCore i7-4800MQ
Socket
LGA1200
PGA946
PCIe Generation
PCIe 3.0
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: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) / not specified (Core i7-4800MQ). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

FeatureCore i5-10400FCore i7-4800MQ
Integrated GPU
No
Unlocked
No
AVX-512
No
Virtualization
VT-x, VT-d
Target Use
Gaming
💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Core i7-4800MQ debuted at $380. On MSRP ($160 vs $380), the Core i5-10400F is $220 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 15.2 pts/$ for the Core i7-4800MQ — making the Core i5-10400F the 137.1% better value option.

FeatureCore i5-10400FCore i7-4800MQ
MSRP
$160-58%
$380
Performance per Dollar
81.4+436%
15.2
Release Date
2020
2013