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

✅Costs $328 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $488 MSRP).
✅Delivers 105.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 39.6 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $488 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-10900E.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-10900E across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 19,332).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 20 MB).
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i9-10900E can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i9-10900E

2020

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +34.8% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while Core i5-10400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 39.6 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($488 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Core i9-10900E

2020

Why buy it

✅Costs $328 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $488 MSRP).
✅Delivers 105.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 39.6 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $488 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-10900E.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +34.8% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while Core i5-10400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-10900E across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 19,332).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 20 MB).
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i9-10900E can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 39.6 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($488 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i9-10900E better than Core i5-10400F?

Yes. Core i9-10900E is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 34.8% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data, 48.4% 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 i9-10900E is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 34.8% 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 i9-10900E is the better fit. You are getting 48.4% better PassMark, backed by 10 cores and 20 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 i9-10900E is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core i9-10900E is 205.0% more expensive on MSRP at $488 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 34.8% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 105.6% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 39.6 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core i9-10900E is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB) and more multi-core headroom with 10 cores / 20 threads instead of 6/12. 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 i9-10900E Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-10900E
1080p
low	192 FPS	164 FPS
medium	152 FPS	145 FPS
high	123 FPS	118 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	99 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	139 FPS
medium	119 FPS	119 FPS
high	97 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	81 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	76 FPS
medium	70 FPS	70 FPS
high	55 FPS	56 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	43 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-10900E

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-10900E
1080p
low	326 FPS	483 FPS
medium	318 FPS	420 FPS
high	290 FPS	359 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	324 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	419 FPS
medium	292 FPS	368 FPS
high	267 FPS	317 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	276 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	258 FPS
medium	258 FPS	227 FPS
high	235 FPS	213 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	185 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-10900E

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-10900E
1080p
low	326 FPS	483 FPS
medium	326 FPS	483 FPS
high	326 FPS	483 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	449 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	483 FPS
medium	326 FPS	483 FPS
high	326 FPS	479 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	403 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	483 FPS
medium	326 FPS	408 FPS
high	289 FPS	361 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	301 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-10900E

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-10900E
1080p
low	326 FPS	483 FPS
medium	326 FPS	483 FPS
high	326 FPS	483 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	483 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	483 FPS
medium	326 FPS	483 FPS
high	326 FPS	483 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	483 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	483 FPS
medium	326 FPS	483 FPS
high	326 FPS	445 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	389 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-10900E

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core i9-10900E

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 i9-10900E

The Core i9-10900E 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 4.7 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1200. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 19,332 points. Launch price was $488.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core i9-10900E offers 10 cores / 20 threads — the Core i9-10900E has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.7 GHz on the Core i9-10900E — a 8.9% clock advantage for the Core i9-10900E (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 i9-10900E's 19,332 — a 39% lead for the Core i9-10900E. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 20 MB (total) on the Core i9-10900E.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-10900E
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	10 / 20+67%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	4.7 GHz+9%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+4%	2.8 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	20 MB (total)+67%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Comet Lake (2020−2025)
PassMark	13,029	19,332+48%
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. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. Both support up to 128 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and LGA1200 (Core i9-10900E).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-10900E
Socket	LGA1200	LGA1200
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2933
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	128 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 i9-10900E includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-10900E
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	UHD Graphics 630
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Core i9-10900E debuted at $488. On MSRP ($160 vs $488), the Core i5-10400F is $328 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 39.6 pts/$ for the Core i9-10900E — making the Core i5-10400F the 69.1% better value option.