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 $339 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Delivers 81.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 44.9 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-10900K.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-10900K across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 22,382).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 20 MB).
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i9-10900K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i9-10900K

2020

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +50.6% higher average FPS across 3 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 44.9 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($499 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Core i9-10900K

2020

Why buy it

✅Costs $339 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Delivers 81.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 44.9 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-10900K.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +50.6% higher average FPS across 3 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 i9-10900K across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 22,382).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 20 MB).
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i9-10900K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 44.9 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($499 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

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

Yes. Core i9-10900K is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 50.6% average FPS lead across 3 shared CPU game tests in our data, 71.8% 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 i9-10900K is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 50.6% 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 i9-10900K is the better fit. You are getting 71.8% 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 i9-10900K is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core i9-10900K is 211.9% more expensive on MSRP at $499 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 50.6% average FPS lead across 3 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 81.5% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 44.9 PassMark/$), 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 i9-10900K 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 i9-10900K Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-10900K
1080p
low	192 FPS	263 FPS
medium	152 FPS	242 FPS
high	123 FPS	202 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	174 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	227 FPS
medium	119 FPS	189 FPS
high	97 FPS	154 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	136 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	157 FPS
medium	70 FPS	131 FPS
high	55 FPS	102 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	89 FPS

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

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-10900K
1080p
low	326 FPS	560 FPS
medium	318 FPS	487 FPS
high	290 FPS	411 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	375 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	497 FPS
medium	292 FPS	436 FPS
high	267 FPS	369 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	321 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	291 FPS
medium	258 FPS	259 FPS
high	235 FPS	247 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	215 FPS

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

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-10900K
1080p
low	326 FPS	560 FPS
medium	326 FPS	560 FPS
high	326 FPS	517 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	426 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	560 FPS
medium	326 FPS	546 FPS
high	326 FPS	464 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	387 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	473 FPS
medium	326 FPS	407 FPS
high	289 FPS	363 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	299 FPS

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

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-10900K
1080p
low	326 FPS	560 FPS
medium	326 FPS	560 FPS
high	326 FPS	560 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	560 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	560 FPS
medium	326 FPS	560 FPS
high	326 FPS	560 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	540 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	539 FPS
medium	326 FPS	490 FPS
high	326 FPS	438 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	383 FPS

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

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

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

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 i9-10900K

The Core i9-10900K 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 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 5.2 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1200. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 22,382 points. Launch price was $488.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core i9-10900K offers 10 cores / 20 threads — the Core i9-10900K has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5.2 GHz on the Core i9-10900K — a 18.9% clock advantage for the Core i9-10900K (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.7 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 i9-10900K's 22,382 — a 52.8% lead for the Core i9-10900K. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 20 MB (total) on the Core i9-10900K.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-10900K
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	10 / 20+67%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	5.2 GHz+21%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.7 GHz+28%
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	22,382+72%
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 Intel 400 series (Core i9-10900K).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-10900K
Socket	LGA1200	LGA1200
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
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

Only the Core i9-10900K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core i9-10900K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Core i9-10900K targets Desktop. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-10900K
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	UHD Graphics 630
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 i9-10900K debuted at $499. On MSRP ($160 vs $499), the Core i5-10400F is $339 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 44.9 pts/$ for the Core i9-10900K — making the Core i5-10400F the 57.9% better value option.