
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

Core i7-5850EQ
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: +87.2% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+100% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 6 MB).
- ✅Costs $275 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $435 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 403.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 16.2 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $435 MSRP).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌38.3% higher power demand at 65W vs 47W.
Core i7-5850EQ
2015Why buy it
- ✅Draws 47W instead of 65W, a 18W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (7,036 vs 13,029).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (6 MB vs 12 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.2 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($435 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020Core i7-5850EQ
2015Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +87.2% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+100% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 6 MB).
- ✅Costs $275 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $435 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 403.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 16.2 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $435 MSRP).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Why buy it
- ✅Draws 47W instead of 65W, a 18W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌38.3% higher power demand at 65W vs 47W.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (7,036 vs 13,029).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (6 MB vs 12 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.2 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($435 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i5-10400F better than Core i7-5850EQ?
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 i7-5850EQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 166 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 130 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 103 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 80 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 139 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 107 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 84 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 66 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 66 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 55 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 42 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 34 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core i7-5850EQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 151 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 140 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 105 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 153 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 131 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 121 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 95 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 120 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 106 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 83 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 60 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core i7-5850EQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 176 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 176 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core i7-5850EQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 176 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core i7-5850EQ

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 i7-5850EQ
Core i7-5850EQ
The Core i7-5850EQ is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 June 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Max frequency: 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 47 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 7,036 points. Launch price was $149.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core i7-5850EQ 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 2.7 GHz on the Core i7-5850EQ — a 45.7% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F. The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i7-5850EQ uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core i7-5850EQ's 7,036 — a 59.7% lead for the Core i5-10400F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 6 MB on the Core i7-5850EQ.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core i7-5850EQ |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12+50% | 4 / 8 |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz+59% | 2.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz | — |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total)+100% | 6 MB |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 1 MB+300% |
| Process | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | Broadwell (2015−2019) |
| PassMark | 13,029+85% | 7,036 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 8,191 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,454 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 5,783 | — |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) / not specified (Core i7-5850EQ). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core i7-5850EQ |
|---|---|---|
| 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 i7-5850EQ debuted at $435. On MSRP ($160 vs $435), the Core i5-10400F is $275 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 16.2 pts/$ for the Core i7-5850EQ — making the Core i5-10400F the 133.7% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core i7-5850EQ |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $160-63% | $435 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.4+402% | 16.2 |
| Release Date | 2020 | 2015 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












