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: +55.6% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $229 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $389 MSRP).
✅Delivers 222.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 25.3 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $389 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 140W, a 75W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i7-5820K.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 15 MB).

Core i7-5820K

2014

Why buy it

✅+25% larger total L3 cache (15 MB vs 12 MB).
✅75% more PCIe lanes (28 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (5,700 vs 8,191).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 25.3 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($389 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌115.4% higher power demand at 140W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Core i7-5820K

2014

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +55.6% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $229 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $389 MSRP).
✅Delivers 222.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 25.3 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $389 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 140W, a 75W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i7-5820K.

Why buy it

✅+25% larger total L3 cache (15 MB vs 12 MB).
✅75% more PCIe lanes (28 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 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (5,700 vs 8,191).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 25.3 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($389 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌115.4% higher power demand at 140W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-10400F better than Core i7-5820K?

Yes. Core i5-10400F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 55.6% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data, 43.7% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, 32.6% higher 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 55.6% 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 i5-10400F is the better fit. You are getting 43.7% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads.

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

Core i5-10400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-10400F is $229 cheaper on MSRP at $160 MSRP versus $389 MSRP, and it gives you a 55.6% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 222.4% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 25.3 PassMark/$), 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 2014) 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 i7-5820K Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-5820K
1080p
low	192 FPS	163 FPS
medium	152 FPS	140 FPS
high	123 FPS	113 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	93 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	137 FPS
medium	119 FPS	116 FPS
high	97 FPS	92 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	75 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	63 FPS
medium	70 FPS	56 FPS
high	55 FPS	44 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	35 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i7-5820K

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-5820K
1080p
low	326 FPS	201 FPS
medium	318 FPS	176 FPS
high	290 FPS	162 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	126 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	177 FPS
medium	292 FPS	155 FPS
high	267 FPS	143 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	114 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	139 FPS
medium	258 FPS	123 FPS
high	235 FPS	105 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	75 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i7-5820K

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-5820K
1080p
low	326 FPS	246 FPS
medium	326 FPS	246 FPS
high	326 FPS	246 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	246 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	246 FPS
medium	326 FPS	246 FPS
high	326 FPS	246 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	246 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	246 FPS
medium	326 FPS	246 FPS
high	289 FPS	246 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	238 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i7-5820K

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-5820K
1080p
low	326 FPS	246 FPS
medium	326 FPS	246 FPS
high	326 FPS	246 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	246 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	246 FPS
medium	326 FPS	246 FPS
high	326 FPS	246 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	246 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	246 FPS
medium	326 FPS	246 FPS
high	326 FPS	246 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	246 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i7-5820K

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core i7-5820K

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 i7-5820K

The Core i7-5820K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Haswell-E (2014) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 15 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 140 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 9,826 points. Launch price was $410.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core i5-10400F and Core i7-5820K share an identical 6-core/12-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.6 GHz on the Core i7-5820K — a 17.7% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.3 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i7-5820K uses Haswell-E (2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core i7-5820K's 9,826 — a 28% lead for the Core i5-10400F. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 5,700 (35.9% advantage for the Core i5-10400F). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,134, a 24.7% lead for the Core i5-10400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 5,383 (7.2% advantage for the Core i5-10400F). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 15 MB (total) on the Core i7-5820K.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-5820K
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	6 / 12
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+19%	3.6 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.3 GHz+14%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	15 MB (total)+25%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	14 nm-36%	22 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Haswell-E (2014)
PassMark	13,029+33%	9,826
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191+44%	5,700
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454+28%	1,134
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783+7%	5,383

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i7-5820K uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. 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 i7-5820K). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 28 (Core i7-5820K) — the Core i7-5820K offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and Intel X99 (Core i7-5820K).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-5820K
Socket	LGA1200	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2133
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+100%	64 GB
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	28+75%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core i7-5820K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs Yes (Core i7-5820K). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Core i7-5820K targets Enthusiast Workstation. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Core i7-5820K rivals Ryzen 5 1600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-5820K
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	Yes
Target Use	Gaming	Enthusiast Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Core i7-5820K debuted at $389. On MSRP ($160 vs $389), the Core i5-10400F is $229 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 25.3 pts/$ for the Core i7-5820K — making the Core i5-10400F the 105.3% better value option.