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 $729 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $889 MSRP).
✅Delivers 253.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 23.0 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $889 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 165W, a 100W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-9820X.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-9820X across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 9,361).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 17 MB).

Core i9-9820X

2018

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +28.8% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+37.5% larger total L3 cache (17 MB vs 12 MB).
✅175% more PCIe lanes (44 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 23.0 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($889 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌153.8% higher power demand at 165W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Core i9-9820X

2018

Why buy it

✅Costs $729 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $889 MSRP).
✅Delivers 253.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 23.0 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $889 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 165W, a 100W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-9820X.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +28.8% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+37.5% larger total L3 cache (17 MB vs 12 MB).
✅175% more PCIe lanes (44 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-9820X across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 9,361).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 17 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 23.0 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($889 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌153.8% higher power demand at 165W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i9-9820X better than Core i5-10400F?

Yes. Core i9-9820X is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 28.8% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data, 61.9% better Geekbench multi-core, and 57.0% higher PassMark, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i9-9820X is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 28.8% 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 i9-9820X is the better fit. You are getting 61.9% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 10 cores and 20 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 i9-9820X is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core i9-9820X is 455.6% more expensive on MSRP at $889 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 28.8% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 253.9% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 23.0 PassMark/$), 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 2018). 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 i9-9820X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9820X
1080p
low	192 FPS	176 FPS
medium	152 FPS	140 FPS
high	123 FPS	114 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	91 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	145 FPS
medium	119 FPS	114 FPS
high	97 FPS	91 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	72 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	67 FPS
medium	70 FPS	56 FPS
high	55 FPS	44 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	35 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-9820X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9820X
1080p
low	326 FPS	327 FPS
medium	318 FPS	281 FPS
high	290 FPS	249 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	221 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	296 FPS
medium	292 FPS	259 FPS
high	267 FPS	228 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	198 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	217 FPS
medium	258 FPS	194 FPS
high	235 FPS	179 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	156 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-9820X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9820X
1080p
low	326 FPS	511 FPS
medium	326 FPS	511 FPS
high	326 FPS	511 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	471 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	511 FPS
medium	326 FPS	482 FPS
high	326 FPS	423 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	367 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	433 FPS
medium	326 FPS	340 FPS
high	289 FPS	298 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	239 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-9820X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9820X
1080p
low	326 FPS	511 FPS
medium	326 FPS	511 FPS
high	326 FPS	511 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	511 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	511 FPS
medium	326 FPS	511 FPS
high	326 FPS	511 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	502 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	511 FPS
medium	326 FPS	480 FPS
high	326 FPS	426 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	367 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-9820X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core i9-9820X

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 i9-9820X

The Core i9-9820X is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (server) (2017−2018) architecture. It features 10 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 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): 165 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2666. Passmark benchmark score: 20,456 points. Launch price was $898.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core i9-9820X offers 10 cores / 20 threads — the Core i9-9820X has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.2 GHz on the Core i9-9820X — a 2.4% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.3 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i9-9820X uses Skylake (server) (2017−2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core i9-9820X's 20,456 — a 44.4% lead for the Core i9-9820X. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,394, a 4.2% lead for the Core i5-10400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 9,361 (47.3% advantage for the Core i9-9820X). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 16.5 MB (total) on the Core i9-9820X.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9820X
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	10 / 20+67%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+2%	4.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.3 GHz+14%
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	20,456+57%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454+4%	1,394
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	9,361+62%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i9-9820X uses LGA2066 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR4 2666 MHz on the Core i9-9820X — the Core i9-9820X supports 200% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 128 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 4 (Core i9-9820X). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 44 (Core i9-9820X) — the Core i9-9820X offers 28 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and Intel X299 (Core i9-9820X).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9820X
Socket	LGA1200	LGA2066
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4 2666 MHz
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	128 GB
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	44+175%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core i9-9820X has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the Core i9-9820X supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs true (Core i9-9820X). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Core i9-9820X targets Workstation. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9820X
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	true
Target Use	Gaming	Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Core i9-9820X debuted at $889. On MSRP ($160 vs $889), the Core i5-10400F is $729 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 23.0 pts/$ for the Core i9-9820X — making the Core i5-10400F the 111.9% better value option.