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 $1,039 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,199 MSRP).
✅Delivers 315.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 19.6 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,199 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 140W, a 75W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-7920X.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-7920X across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 23,508).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 17 MB).

Core i9-7920X

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +27.1% higher average FPS across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+37.5% larger total L3 cache (17 MB vs 12 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 19.6 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,199 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌115.4% higher power demand at 140W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Core i9-7920X

2017

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,039 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,199 MSRP).
✅Delivers 315.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 19.6 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,199 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 140W, a 75W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-7920X.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +27.1% higher average FPS across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+37.5% larger total L3 cache (17 MB vs 12 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-7920X across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 23,508).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 17 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 19.6 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,199 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌115.4% higher power demand at 140W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i9-7920X better than Core i5-10400F?

Yes. Core i9-7920X is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 27.1% average FPS lead across 7 shared CPU game tests in our data and 80.4% better PassMark, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i9-7920X is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 27.1% more average FPS across 7 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i9-7920X is the better fit. You are getting 80.4% better PassMark, backed by 12 cores and 24 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 37.5% larger total L3 cache (17 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Core i9-7920X is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core i9-7920X is 649.4% more expensive on MSRP at $1,199 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 27.1% average FPS lead across 7 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 315.3% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 19.6 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper. That said, if you already own a compatible LGA1200 + DDR4 setup, Core i5-10400F can still make sense as a platform-matched option because it avoids a motherboard and RAM swap.

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

Core i5-10400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2017). That makes it the safer long-term pick.

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 i9-7920X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-7920X
1080p
low	192 FPS	163 FPS
medium	152 FPS	142 FPS
high	123 FPS	113 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	96 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	140 FPS
medium	119 FPS	119 FPS
high	97 FPS	94 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	79 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	76 FPS
medium	70 FPS	70 FPS
high	55 FPS	55 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	43 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-7920X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-7920X
1080p
low	326 FPS	352 FPS
medium	318 FPS	300 FPS
high	290 FPS	274 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	243 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	315 FPS
medium	292 FPS	274 FPS
high	267 FPS	249 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	215 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	227 FPS
medium	258 FPS	201 FPS
high	235 FPS	191 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	162 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-7920X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-7920X
1080p
low	326 FPS	560 FPS
medium	326 FPS	468 FPS
high	326 FPS	420 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	366 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	507 FPS
medium	326 FPS	431 FPS
high	326 FPS	385 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	334 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	390 FPS
medium	326 FPS	322 FPS
high	289 FPS	284 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	231 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-7920X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-7920X
1080p
low	326 FPS	588 FPS
medium	326 FPS	588 FPS
high	326 FPS	588 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	588 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	588 FPS
medium	326 FPS	588 FPS
high	326 FPS	579 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	502 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	531 FPS
medium	326 FPS	480 FPS
high	326 FPS	424 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	366 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-7920X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core i9-7920X

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 i9-7920X

The Core i9-7920X is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 10 September 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (server) (2017−2018) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 16.5 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2066. Thermal design power (TDP): 140 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2666. Passmark benchmark score: 23,508 points. Launch price was $1,199.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core i9-7920X offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Core i9-7920X has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.4 GHz on the Core i9-7920X — a 2.3% clock advantage for the Core i9-7920X (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i9-7920X uses Skylake (server) (2017−2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core i9-7920X's 23,508 — a 57.4% lead for the Core i9-7920X. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 16.5 MB (total) on the Core i9-7920X.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-7920X
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	12 / 24+100%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	4.4 GHz+2%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	2.9 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	16.5 MB (total)+38%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	1 MB (per core)+300%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Skylake (server) (2017−2018)
PassMark	13,029	23,508+80%
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 i9-7920X uses LGA2066 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-7920X
Socket	LGA1200	LGA2066
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 i9-7920X). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-7920X
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 i9-7920X debuted at $1199. On MSRP ($160 vs $1199), the Core i5-10400F is $1039 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 19.6 pts/$ for the Core i9-7920X — making the Core i5-10400F the 122.4% better value option.