
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

Core i9-10900
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
- ✅Costs $323 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $483 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 105.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 39.7 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $483 MSRP).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-10900.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-10900 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 19,163).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 20 MB).
Core i9-10900
2020Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +46.9% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 39.7 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($483 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020Core i9-10900
2020Why buy it
- ✅Costs $323 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $483 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 105.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 39.7 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $483 MSRP).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-10900.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +46.9% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-10900 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 19,163).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 20 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 39.7 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($483 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i9-10900 better than Core i5-10400F?
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 i9-10900 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 292 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 259 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 219 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 188 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 239 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 191 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 157 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 138 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 166 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 135 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 104 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 91 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core i9-10900 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 479 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 479 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 479 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 479 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 479 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 479 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 479 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 452 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 454 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 385 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 360 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 310 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core i9-10900 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 479 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 479 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 479 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 479 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 479 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 479 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 479 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 461 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 479 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 465 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 417 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 351 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core i9-10900 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 479 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 479 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 479 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 479 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 479 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 479 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 479 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 479 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 479 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 479 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 479 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 436 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core i9-10900

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 i9-10900
Core i9-10900
The Core i9-10900 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 10 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 5.1 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1200. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 19,163 points. Launch price was $299.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core i9-10900 offers 10 cores / 20 threads — the Core i9-10900 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5.1 GHz on the Core i9-10900 — a 17% clock advantage for the Core i9-10900 (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). Both are built on the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture using a 14 nm process. In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core i9-10900's 19,163 — a 38.1% lead for the Core i9-10900. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 20 MB (total) on the Core i9-10900.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core i9-10900 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 10 / 20+67% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz | 5.1 GHz+19% |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz+4% | 2.8 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 20 MB (total)+67% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| Process | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | Comet Lake (2020−2025) |
| PassMark | 13,029 | 19,163+47% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 8,191 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,454 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 5,783 | — |
Memory & Platform
Both processors use the LGA1200 socket with PCIe 3.0.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core i9-10900 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | LGA1200 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2666 | — |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB | — |
| RAM Channels | 2 | — |
| ECC Support | No | — |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | — |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) / not specified (Core i9-10900). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core i9-10900 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 i9-10900 debuted at $483. On MSRP ($160 vs $483), the Core i5-10400F is $323 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 39.7 pts/$ for the Core i9-10900 — making the Core i5-10400F the 69% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core i9-10900 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $160-67% | $483 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.4+105% | 39.7 |
| Release Date | 2020 | 2020 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












