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 $457 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $617 MSRP).
✅Delivers 83.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 44.5 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $617 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-13900H.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-13900H across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 27,444).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 24 MB).
❌44.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 45W.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Core i9-13900H moves to FCBGA1744 and DDR5.

Core i9-13900H

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +54.4% higher average FPS across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Draws 45W instead of 65W, a 20W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA1744 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 44.5 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($617 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Core i9-13900H

2023

Why buy it

✅Costs $457 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $617 MSRP).
✅Delivers 83.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 44.5 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $617 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-13900H.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +54.4% higher average FPS across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Draws 45W instead of 65W, a 20W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA1744 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-13900H across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 27,444).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 24 MB).
❌44.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 45W.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Core i9-13900H moves to FCBGA1744 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 44.5 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($617 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i9-13900H better than Core i5-10400F?

Yes. Core i9-13900H is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 54.4% average FPS lead across 8 shared CPU game tests in our data, 110.6% 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 i9-13900H is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 54.4% more average FPS across 8 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i9-13900H is the better fit. You are getting 110.6% better PassMark, backed by 14 cores and 20 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 12 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core i9-13900H is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core i9-13900H is 285.6% more expensive on MSRP at $617 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 54.4% average FPS lead across 8 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 83.1% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 44.5 PassMark/$), 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 i9-13900H is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2020), a healthier platform with FCBGA1744 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200, 100% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 12 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 14 cores / 20 threads instead of 6/12. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

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 i9-13900H Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-13900H
1080p
low	192 FPS	262 FPS
medium	152 FPS	253 FPS
high	123 FPS	210 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	180 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	223 FPS
medium	119 FPS	192 FPS
high	97 FPS	154 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	135 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	154 FPS
medium	70 FPS	132 FPS
high	55 FPS	101 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	90 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-13900H

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-13900H
1080p
low	326 FPS	636 FPS
medium	318 FPS	543 FPS
high	290 FPS	458 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	417 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	554 FPS
medium	292 FPS	492 FPS
high	267 FPS	416 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	357 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	325 FPS
medium	258 FPS	296 FPS
high	235 FPS	279 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	246 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-13900H

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-13900H
1080p
low	326 FPS	648 FPS
medium	326 FPS	530 FPS
high	326 FPS	467 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	405 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	591 FPS
medium	326 FPS	491 FPS
high	326 FPS	427 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	370 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	434 FPS
medium	326 FPS	374 FPS
high	289 FPS	339 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	290 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-13900H

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-13900H
1080p
low	326 FPS	686 FPS
medium	326 FPS	686 FPS
high	326 FPS	686 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	672 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	686 FPS
medium	326 FPS	686 FPS
high	326 FPS	626 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	552 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	555 FPS
medium	326 FPS	504 FPS
high	326 FPS	451 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	394 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-13900H

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core i9-13900H

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 i9-13900H

The Core i9-13900H is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Raptor Lake-H (2023−2024) architecture. It features 14 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 5.4 GHz. L3 cache: 24 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1744. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Memory support: DDR4, DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 27,444 points. Launch price was $617.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core i9-13900H offers 14 cores / 20 threads — the Core i9-13900H has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5.4 GHz on the Core i9-13900H — a 22.7% clock advantage for the Core i9-13900H (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i9-13900H uses Raptor Lake-H (2023−2024) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core i9-13900H's 27,444 — a 71.2% lead for the Core i9-13900H. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 24 MB (total) on the Core i9-13900H.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-13900H
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	14 / 20+133%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	5.4 GHz+26%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+12%	2.6 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	24 MB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	2 MB (per core)+700%
Process	14 nm	Intel 7 nm-50%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Raptor Lake-H (2023−2024)
PassMark	13,029	27,444+111%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i9-13900H uses FCBGA1744 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-13900H
Socket	LGA1200	FCBGA1744
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
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 i9-13900H). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-13900H
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 i9-13900H debuted at $617. On MSRP ($160 vs $617), the Core i5-10400F is $457 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 44.5 pts/$ for the Core i9-13900H — making the Core i5-10400F the 58.7% better value option.