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 $1,029 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,189 MSRP).
✅Delivers 287.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 21.0 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,189 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 165W, a 100W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-9920X.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-9920X across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 24,974).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 19 MB).

Core i9-9920X

2018

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +49.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+60.4% larger total L3 cache (19 MB vs 12 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 21.0 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,189 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 i9-9920X

2018

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,029 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,189 MSRP).
✅Delivers 287.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 21.0 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,189 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 165W, a 100W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-9920X.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +49.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+60.4% larger total L3 cache (19 MB vs 12 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-9920X across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 24,974).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 19 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 21.0 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,189 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 i9-9920X better than Core i5-10400F?

Yes. Core i9-9920X is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 49.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data and 91.7% better PassMark, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i9-9920X is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 49.3% 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 i9-9920X is the better fit. You are getting 91.7% better PassMark, backed by 12 cores and 24 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 60.4% larger total L3 cache (19 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Core i9-9920X is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core i9-9920X is 643.1% more expensive on MSRP at $1,189 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 49.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 287.7% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 21.0 PassMark/$), 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 i9-9920X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9920X
1080p
low	192 FPS	173 FPS
medium	152 FPS	150 FPS
high	123 FPS	121 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	102 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	145 FPS
medium	119 FPS	122 FPS
high	97 FPS	98 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	83 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	77 FPS
medium	70 FPS	70 FPS
high	55 FPS	55 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	43 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-9920X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9920X
1080p
low	326 FPS	508 FPS
medium	318 FPS	437 FPS
high	290 FPS	374 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	339 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	438 FPS
medium	292 FPS	385 FPS
high	267 FPS	332 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	288 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	271 FPS
medium	258 FPS	237 FPS
high	235 FPS	223 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	193 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-9920X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9920X
1080p
low	326 FPS	624 FPS
medium	326 FPS	547 FPS
high	326 FPS	499 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	435 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	577 FPS
medium	326 FPS	487 FPS
high	326 FPS	442 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	386 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	444 FPS
medium	326 FPS	364 FPS
high	289 FPS	327 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	268 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-9920X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9920X
1080p
low	326 FPS	624 FPS
medium	326 FPS	624 FPS
high	326 FPS	624 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	624 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	624 FPS
medium	326 FPS	624 FPS
high	326 FPS	624 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	620 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	624 FPS
medium	326 FPS	582 FPS
high	326 FPS	521 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-9920X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core i9-9920X

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 i9-9920X

The Core i9-9920X 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 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.5 GHz. L3 cache: 19.25 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: 24,974 points. Launch price was $1,189.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core i9-9920X offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Core i9-9920X has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.5 GHz on the Core i9-9920X — a 4.5% clock advantage for the Core i9-9920X (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i9-9920X uses Skylake (server) (2017−2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core i9-9920X's 24,974 — a 62.9% lead for the Core i9-9920X. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 19.25 MB (total) on the Core i9-9920X.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9920X
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	12 / 24+100%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	4.5 GHz+5%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.5 GHz+21%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	19.25 MB (total)+60%
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	24,974+92%
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 i9-9920X uses LGA2066 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9920X
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 i9-9920X). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9920X
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 i9-9920X debuted at $1189. On MSRP ($160 vs $1189), the Core i5-10400F is $1029 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 21.0 pts/$ for the Core i9-9920X — making the Core i5-10400F the 118% better value option.