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: +47.4% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Costs $190 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $350 MSRP).
✅Delivers 219.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 25.5 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $350 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 91W, a 26W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-6700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i7-6700K

2015

Why buy it

✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 530, while Core i5-10400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (8,933 vs 13,029).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 25.5 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($350 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌40% higher power demand at 91W vs 65W.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Core i7-6700K

2015

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +47.4% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Costs $190 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $350 MSRP).
✅Delivers 219.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 25.5 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $350 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 91W, a 26W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 530, while Core i5-10400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-6700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (8,933 vs 13,029).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 25.5 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($350 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌40% higher power demand at 91W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-10400F better than Core i7-6700K?

Yes. Core i5-10400F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 47.4% average FPS lead across 3 shared CPU game tests in our data, 45.9% better 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 47.4% more average FPS across 3 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 45.9% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 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 $190 cheaper on MSRP at $160 MSRP versus $350 MSRP, and it gives you a 47.4% average FPS lead across 3 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 219.1% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 25.5 PassMark/$), 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 2015), 50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 12 threads instead of 4/8. 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 i7-6700K Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-6700K
1080p
low	192 FPS	207 FPS
medium	152 FPS	164 FPS
high	123 FPS	131 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	94 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	179 FPS
medium	119 FPS	141 FPS
high	97 FPS	111 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	79 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	72 FPS
medium	70 FPS	60 FPS
high	55 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	37 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i7-6700K

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-6700K
1080p
low	326 FPS	223 FPS
medium	318 FPS	220 FPS
high	290 FPS	199 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	168 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	223 FPS
medium	292 FPS	196 FPS
high	267 FPS	177 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	150 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	182 FPS
medium	258 FPS	159 FPS
high	235 FPS	135 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	110 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i7-6700K

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-6700K
1080p
low	326 FPS	223 FPS
medium	326 FPS	223 FPS
high	326 FPS	223 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	223 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	223 FPS
medium	326 FPS	223 FPS
high	326 FPS	223 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	223 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	223 FPS
medium	326 FPS	223 FPS
high	289 FPS	223 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	223 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i7-6700K

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-6700K
1080p
low	326 FPS	223 FPS
medium	326 FPS	223 FPS
high	326 FPS	223 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	223 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	223 FPS
medium	326 FPS	223 FPS
high	326 FPS	223 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	223 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	223 FPS
medium	326 FPS	223 FPS
high	326 FPS	223 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	223 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i7-6700K

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core i7-6700K

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 i7-6700K

The Core i7-6700K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 5 August 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 4 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 91 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 8,933 points. Launch price was $339.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core i7-6700K 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 4.2 GHz on the Core i7-6700K — a 2.4% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 4 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i7-6700K uses Skylake (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core i7-6700K's 8,933 — a 37.3% lead for the Core i5-10400F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 8 MB (total) on the Core i7-6700K.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-6700K
Cores / Threads	6 / 12+50%	4 / 8
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+2%	4.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	4 GHz+38%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)+50%	8 MB (total)
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Skylake (2015−2016)
PassMark	13,029+46%	8,933
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 i7-6700K uses LGA1151 (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. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-6700K
Socket	LGA1200	LGA1151
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	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core i7-6700K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core i7-6700K includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 530), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Core i7-6700K targets Desktop. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-6700K
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	HD Graphics 530
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 i7-6700K debuted at $350. On MSRP ($160 vs $350), the Core i5-10400F is $190 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 25.5 pts/$ for the Core i7-6700K — making the Core i5-10400F the 104.5% better value option.