
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

Core i9-12950HX
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
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-12950HX.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-12950HX across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 23,113).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 30 MB).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Core i9-12950HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.
Core i9-12950HX
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +63.5% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+150% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on FCBGA1964 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
- ✅25% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020Core i9-12950HX
2022Why buy it
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-12950HX.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +63.5% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+150% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on FCBGA1964 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
- ✅25% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-12950HX across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 23,113).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 30 MB).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Core i9-12950HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.
Trade-offs
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i9-12950HX 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 i9-12950HX |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 269 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 259 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 214 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 184 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 230 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 198 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 159 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 140 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 159 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 136 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 106 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 93 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core i9-12950HX |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 613 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 523 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 439 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 397 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 528 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 470 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 397 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 340 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 311 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 281 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 266 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 232 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core i9-12950HX |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 775 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 616 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 545 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 462 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 692 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 554 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 485 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 416 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 498 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 416 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 373 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 314 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core i9-12950HX |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 787 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 783 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 676 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 600 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 744 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 659 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 569 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 496 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 523 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 474 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 421 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 366 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core i9-12950HX

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 i9-12950HX
Core i9-12950HX
The Core i9-12950HX is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 10 May 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Alder Lake-HX (2022) architecture. It features 16 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 2.3 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 30 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1964. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR4, DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 31,494 points. Launch price was $499.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core i9-12950HX offers 16 cores / 24 threads — the Core i9-12950HX has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5 GHz on the Core i9-12950HX — a 15.1% clock advantage for the Core i9-12950HX (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.3 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i9-12950HX uses Alder Lake-HX (2022) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core i9-12950HX's 31,494 — a 82.9% lead for the Core i9-12950HX. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 23,113 (95.3% advantage for the Core i9-12950HX). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 2,349, a 47.1% lead for the Core i9-12950HX that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 15,711 (92.4% advantage for the Core i9-12950HX). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 30 MB (total) on the Core i9-12950HX.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core i9-12950HX |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 16 / 24+167% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz | 5 GHz+16% |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz+26% | 2.3 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 30 MB (total)+150% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core)+400% |
| Process | 14 nm | Intel 7 nm-50% |
| Architecture | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | Alder Lake-HX (2022) |
| PassMark | 13,029 | 31,494+142% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 8,191 | 23,113+182% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,454 | 2,349+62% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 5,783 | 15,711+172% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i9-12950HX uses FCBGA1964 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR5-4800 on the Core i9-12950HX — the Core i9-12950HX supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 128 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 20 (Core i9-12950HX) — the Core i9-12950HX offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and HM670,WM690 (Core i9-12950HX).
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core i9-12950HX |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | FCBGA1964 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 5.0+67% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2666 | DDR5-4800+25% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB | 128 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 20+25% |
Advanced Features
Only the Core i9-12950HX has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i9-12950HX). The Core i9-12950HX includes integrated graphics (Intel UHD Graphics 770), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Core i9-12950HX targets Mobile Workstation Flagship. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Core i9-12950HX rivals Ryzen 9 6980HX.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core i9-12950HX |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel UHD Graphics 770 |
| Unlocked | No | Yes |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d, EPT |
| Target Use | Gaming | Mobile Workstation Flagship |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












