
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

Core i7-4860HQ
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
2020Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +97.8% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i7-4860HQ.
Trade-offs
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Core i7-4860HQ mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌38.3% higher power demand at 65W vs 47W.
Core i7-4860HQ
2014Why 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 (6,204 vs 13,029).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020Core i7-4860HQ
2014Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +97.8% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i7-4860HQ.
Why buy it
- ✅Draws 47W instead of 65W, a 18W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Core i7-4860HQ mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌38.3% higher power demand at 65W vs 47W.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (6,204 vs 13,029).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i5-10400F better than Core i7-4860HQ?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core i7-4860HQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 155 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 142 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 113 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 91 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 139 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 118 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 93 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 75 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 66 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 59 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 46 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 37 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core i7-4860HQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 145 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 107 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 143 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 124 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 116 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 95 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 111 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 98 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 77 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 55 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core i7-4860HQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 155 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 155 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core i7-4860HQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 155 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core i7-4860HQ

Core i5-10400F
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 i7-4860HQ
Core i7-4860HQ
The Core i7-4860HQ is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 February 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Crystalwell (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1364. Thermal design power (TDP): 47 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,204 points. Launch price was $434.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core i7-4860HQ 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 3.6 GHz on the Core i7-4860HQ — a 17.7% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i7-4860HQ uses Crystalwell (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core i7-4860HQ's 6,204 — a 71% lead for the Core i5-10400F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 8 MB (total) on the Core i7-4860HQ.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core i7-4860HQ |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12+50% | 4 / 8 |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz+19% | 3.6 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz+21% | 2.4 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) | Crystalwell (2013−2014) |
| PassMark | 13,029+110% | 6,204 |
| 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 i7-4860HQ uses BGA1364 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core i7-4860HQ |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | BGA1364 |
| 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 i7-4860HQ). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core i7-4860HQ |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | — |
| Target Use | Gaming | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












