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: +86.8% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Costs $218 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $378 MSRP).
✅Delivers 338.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 18.6 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $378 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i7-6820EQ.

Trade-offs

❌44.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 45W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-6820EQ can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i7-6820EQ

2015

Why buy it

✅Draws 45W instead of 65W, a 20W reduction.
✅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 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (7,025 vs 13,029).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 18.6 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($378 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Core i7-6820EQ

2015

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +86.8% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Costs $218 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $378 MSRP).
✅Delivers 338.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 18.6 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $378 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i7-6820EQ.

Why buy it

✅Draws 45W instead of 65W, a 20W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 530, while Core i5-10400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌44.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 45W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-6820EQ can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (7,025 vs 13,029).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 18.6 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($378 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-10400F better than Core i7-6820EQ?

Yes. Core i5-10400F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 86.8% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data, 85.5% 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 86.8% more average FPS across 4 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 85.5% 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 $218 cheaper on MSRP at $160 MSRP versus $378 MSRP, and it gives you a 86.8% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 338.2% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 18.6 PassMark/$), 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 i7-6820EQ Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-6820EQ
1080p
low	192 FPS	164 FPS
medium	152 FPS	130 FPS
high	123 FPS	103 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	80 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	141 FPS
medium	119 FPS	111 FPS
high	97 FPS	86 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	67 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	66 FPS
medium	70 FPS	56 FPS
high	55 FPS	43 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	34 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i7-6820EQ

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-6820EQ
1080p
low	326 FPS	176 FPS
medium	318 FPS	153 FPS
high	290 FPS	142 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	106 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	154 FPS
medium	292 FPS	133 FPS
high	267 FPS	122 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	95 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	121 FPS
medium	258 FPS	108 FPS
high	235 FPS	84 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	60 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i7-6820EQ

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-6820EQ
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

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i7-6820EQ

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-6820EQ
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

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i7-6820EQ

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core i7-6820EQ

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 i7-6820EQ

The Core i7-6820EQ is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 12 October 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Max frequency: 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Memory support: LPDDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 7,025 points. Launch price was $378.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core i7-6820EQ 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 2.8 GHz on the Core i7-6820EQ — a 42.3% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F. The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i7-6820EQ uses Skylake (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core i7-6820EQ's 7,025 — a 59.9% lead for the Core i5-10400F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 8 MB on the Core i7-6820EQ.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-6820EQ
Cores / Threads	6 / 12+50%	4 / 8
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+54%	2.8 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	—
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)+50%	8 MB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	1 MB+300%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Skylake (2015−2016)
PassMark	13,029+85%	7,025
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

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 i7-6820EQ
Socket	LGA1200	—
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

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core i7-6820EQ includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 530), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Core i7-6820EQ targets Embedded. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i7-6820EQ
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	HD Graphics 530
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Gaming	Embedded

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Core i7-6820EQ debuted at $378. On MSRP ($160 vs $378), the Core i5-10400F is $218 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 18.6 pts/$ for the Core i7-6820EQ — making the Core i5-10400F the 125.7% better value option.