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 $353 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $513 MSRP).
✅Delivers 115.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 37.8 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $513 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 127W, a 62W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-9900KS.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-9900KS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 19,397).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).

Core i9-9900KS

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +37.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 37.8 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($513 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌95.4% higher power demand at 127W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Core i9-9900KS

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $353 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $513 MSRP).
✅Delivers 115.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 37.8 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $513 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 127W, a 62W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-9900KS.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +37.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-9900KS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 19,397).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 37.8 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($513 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌95.4% higher power demand at 127W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i9-9900KS better than Core i5-10400F?

Yes. Core i9-9900KS is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 37.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data and 48.9% better PassMark, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i9-9900KS is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 37.3% 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 i9-9900KS is the better fit. You are getting 48.9% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Core i9-9900KS is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core i9-9900KS is 220.6% more expensive on MSRP at $513 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 37.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 115.4% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 37.8 PassMark/$), 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 2019). 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 i9-9900KS Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9900KS
1080p
low	192 FPS	301 FPS
medium	152 FPS	273 FPS
high	123 FPS	228 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	180 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	266 FPS
medium	119 FPS	218 FPS
high	97 FPS	177 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	142 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	168 FPS
medium	70 FPS	139 FPS
high	55 FPS	107 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	93 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-9900KS

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9900KS
1080p
low	326 FPS	449 FPS
medium	318 FPS	369 FPS
high	290 FPS	322 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	286 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	397 FPS
medium	292 FPS	344 FPS
high	267 FPS	298 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	255 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	267 FPS
medium	258 FPS	238 FPS
high	235 FPS	226 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	192 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-9900KS

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9900KS
1080p
low	326 FPS	485 FPS
medium	326 FPS	485 FPS
high	326 FPS	485 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	429 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	485 FPS
medium	326 FPS	485 FPS
high	326 FPS	454 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	373 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	462 FPS
medium	326 FPS	401 FPS
high	289 FPS	351 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	283 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-9900KS

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9900KS
1080p
low	326 FPS	485 FPS
medium	326 FPS	485 FPS
high	326 FPS	485 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	485 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	485 FPS
medium	326 FPS	485 FPS
high	326 FPS	485 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	485 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	485 FPS
medium	326 FPS	485 FPS
high	326 FPS	440 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	380 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-9900KS

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core i9-9900KS

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 i9-9900KS

The Core i9-9900KS is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 28 October 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 4 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 127 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 19,397 points. Launch price was $513.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core i9-9900KS offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Core i9-9900KS has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5 GHz on the Core i9-9900KS — a 15.1% clock advantage for the Core i9-9900KS (base: 2.9 GHz vs 4 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i9-9900KS uses Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core i9-9900KS's 19,397 — a 39.3% lead for the Core i9-9900KS. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 16 MB (total) on the Core i9-9900KS.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9900KS
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 16+33%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	5 GHz+16%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	4 GHz+38%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	16 MB (total)+33%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)
PassMark	13,029	19,397+49%
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 i9-9900KS uses LGA1151 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9900KS
Socket	LGA1200	LGA1151
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
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 i9-9900KS). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9900KS
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 i9-9900KS debuted at $513. On MSRP ($160 vs $513), the Core i5-10400F is $353 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 37.8 pts/$ for the Core i9-9900KS — making the Core i5-10400F the 73.2% better value option.