
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

Core i7-4960X
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: +32.7% higher average FPS across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $830 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $990 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 711.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 10.0 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $990 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 130W, a 65W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i7-4960X.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 15 MB).
Core i7-4960X
2013Why buy it
- ✅+25% larger total L3 cache (15 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅150% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (9,935 vs 13,029).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.0 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($990 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌100% higher power demand at 130W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020Core i7-4960X
2013Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +32.7% higher average FPS across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $830 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $990 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 711.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 10.0 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $990 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 130W, a 65W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i7-4960X.
Why buy it
- ✅+25% larger total L3 cache (15 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅150% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 15 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (9,935 vs 13,029).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.0 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($990 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌100% higher power demand at 130W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i5-10400F better than Core i7-4960X?
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 i7-4960X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 174 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 147 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 120 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 97 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 145 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 120 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 77 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 65 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 58 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 45 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 36 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core i7-4960X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 242 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 210 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 190 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 154 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 213 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 185 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 168 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 139 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 167 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 147 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 131 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 97 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core i7-4960X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 248 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 248 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core i7-4960X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 248 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core i7-4960X

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 i7-4960X
Core i7-4960X
The Core i7-4960X is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge-E (2013) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 15 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 9,935 points. Launch price was $999.
Processing Power
Both the Core i5-10400F and Core i7-4960X share an identical 6-core/12-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4 GHz on the Core i7-4960X — a 7.2% 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 i7-4960X uses Ivy Bridge-E (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core i7-4960X's 9,935 — a 26.9% lead for the Core i5-10400F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 15 MB (total) on the Core i7-4960X.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core i7-4960X |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 6 / 12 |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz+7% | 4 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz | 3.6 GHz+24% |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 15 MB (total)+25% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| Process | 14 nm-36% | 22 nm |
| Architecture | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | Ivy Bridge-E (2013) |
| PassMark | 13,029+31% | 9,935 |
| 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 i7-4960X uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR3-1866 on the Core i7-4960X — the Core i5-10400F supports 28.6% 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 — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 4 (Core i7-4960X). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 40 (Core i7-4960X) — the Core i7-4960X offers 24 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core i7-4960X |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | LGA2011 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2666+33% | DDR3-1866 |
| 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 i7-4960X has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Core i7-4960X targets Desktop. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core i7-4960X |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | Yes |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| 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 i7-4960X debuted at $990. On MSRP ($160 vs $990), the Core i5-10400F is $830 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 10.0 pts/$ for the Core i7-4960X — making the Core i5-10400F the 156.1% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core i7-4960X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $160-84% | $990 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.4+714% | 10.0 |
| Release Date | 2020 | 2013 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












