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: +3.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $839 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
✅Delivers 507.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 13.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 140W, a 75W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i7-5960X.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 9,720).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 20 MB).

Core i7-5960X

2014

Why buy it

✅+18.7% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 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 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($999 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 i7-5960X

2014

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $839 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
✅Delivers 507.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 13.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 140W, a 75W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i7-5960X.

Why buy it

✅+18.7% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).
✅150% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 9,720).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 20 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($999 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 i7-5960X?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Core i5-10400F is ahead with a 3.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-5960X pulls ahead with 18.7% better Cinebench R23 multi-core. Core i7-5960X also has the bigger cache pool with 66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-5960X is the better fit. You are getting 18.7% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 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 $839 cheaper on MSRP at $160 MSRP versus $999 MSRP, and it gives you a 3.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that Core i7-5960X is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 18.7% better Cinebench R23 multi-core. It is also 507.9% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 13.4 PassMark/$), 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). That makes it the safer long-term pick.

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 i7-5960X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-5960X
1080p
low	192 FPS	162 FPS
medium	152 FPS	141 FPS
high	123 FPS	113 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	93 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	136 FPS
medium	119 FPS	115 FPS
high	97 FPS	90 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	73 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	63 FPS
medium	70 FPS	57 FPS
high	55 FPS	44 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	35 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i7-5960X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-5960X
1080p
low	326 FPS	329 FPS
medium	318 FPS	296 FPS
high	290 FPS	255 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	210 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	283 FPS
medium	292 FPS	259 FPS
high	267 FPS	223 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	182 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	182 FPS
medium	258 FPS	166 FPS
high	235 FPS	143 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	114 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i7-5960X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-5960X
1080p
low	326 FPS	335 FPS
medium	326 FPS	335 FPS
high	326 FPS	335 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	335 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	335 FPS
medium	326 FPS	335 FPS
high	326 FPS	335 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	335 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	335 FPS
medium	326 FPS	335 FPS
high	289 FPS	333 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	274 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i7-5960X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-5960X
1080p
low	326 FPS	335 FPS
medium	326 FPS	335 FPS
high	326 FPS	335 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	335 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	335 FPS
medium	326 FPS	335 FPS
high	326 FPS	335 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	335 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	335 FPS
medium	326 FPS	335 FPS
high	326 FPS	335 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	335 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i7-5960X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core i7-5960X

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 i7-5960X

The Core i7-5960X 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 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 140 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 13,382 points. Launch price was $999.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core i7-5960X offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Core i7-5960X has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.5 GHz on the Core i7-5960X — a 20.5% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i7-5960X uses Haswell-E (2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core i7-5960X's 13,382 — a 2.7% lead for the Core i7-5960X. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 9,720 (17.1% advantage for the Core i7-5960X). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,244, a 15.6% lead for the Core i5-10400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 7,412 (24.7% advantage for the Core i7-5960X). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 20 MB (total) on the Core i7-5960X.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-5960X
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 16+33%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+23%	3.5 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3 GHz+3%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	20 MB (total)+67%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256K (per core)
Process	14 nm-36%	22 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Haswell-E (2014)
PassMark	13,029	13,382+3%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	9,720+19%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454+17%	1,244
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	7,412+28%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i7-5960X 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 i7-5960X). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 40 (Core i7-5960X) — the Core i7-5960X offers 24 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and X99 (Core i7-5960X).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-5960X
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	40+150%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs Yes (Core i7-5960X). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-5960X
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	Yes
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Core i7-5960X debuted at $999. On MSRP ($160 vs $999), the Core i5-10400F is $839 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 13.4 pts/$ for the Core i7-5960X — making the Core i5-10400F the 143.5% better value option.