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 $1,524 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,684 MSRP).
✅Delivers 358.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 17.8 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,684 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 165W, a 100W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-9960X.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-9960X across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 10,700).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 22 MB).

Core i9-9960X

2018

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +69.8% higher average FPS across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+83.3% larger total L3 cache (22 MB vs 12 MB).
✅175% more PCIe lanes (44 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 17.8 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,684 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 i9-9960X

2018

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,524 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,684 MSRP).
✅Delivers 358.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 17.8 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,684 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 165W, a 100W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i9-9960X.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +69.8% higher average FPS across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+83.3% larger total L3 cache (22 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 i9-9960X across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 10,700).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 22 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 17.8 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,684 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 i9-9960X better than Core i5-10400F?

Yes. Core i9-9960X is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 69.8% average FPS lead across 6 shared CPU game tests in our data, 85% better Geekbench multi-core, and 129.7% higher PassMark, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i9-9960X is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 69.8% more average FPS across 6 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i9-9960X is the better fit. You are getting 85% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 83.3% larger total L3 cache (22 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Core i9-9960X is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core i9-9960X is 952.5% more expensive on MSRP at $1,684 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 69.8% average FPS lead across 6 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 358.2% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 17.8 PassMark/$), 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 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 i9-9960X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9960X
1080p
low	192 FPS	168 FPS
medium	152 FPS	148 FPS
high	123 FPS	118 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	139 FPS
medium	119 FPS	120 FPS
high	97 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	80 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 i9-9960X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9960X
1080p
low	326 FPS	498 FPS
medium	318 FPS	429 FPS
high	290 FPS	366 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	332 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	430 FPS
medium	292 FPS	377 FPS
high	267 FPS	325 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	283 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	266 FPS
medium	258 FPS	233 FPS
high	235 FPS	219 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	189 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-9960X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9960X
1080p
low	326 FPS	748 FPS
medium	326 FPS	748 FPS
high	326 FPS	728 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	645 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	734 FPS
medium	326 FPS	659 FPS
high	326 FPS	624 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	554 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	492 FPS
medium	326 FPS	414 FPS
high	289 FPS	371 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	306 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-9960X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9960X
1080p
low	326 FPS	748 FPS
medium	326 FPS	748 FPS
high	326 FPS	748 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	679 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	748 FPS
medium	326 FPS	737 FPS
high	326 FPS	639 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	558 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	579 FPS
medium	326 FPS	525 FPS
high	326 FPS	469 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	409 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core i9-9960X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core i9-9960X

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 i9-9960X

The Core i9-9960X 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 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 4.5 GHz. L3 cache: 22 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: 29,927 points. Launch price was $1,684.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core i9-9960X offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Core i9-9960X has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.5 GHz on the Core i9-9960X — a 4.5% clock advantage for the Core i9-9960X (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.1 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i9-9960X uses Skylake (server) (2017−2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core i9-9960X's 29,927 — a 78.7% lead for the Core i9-9960X. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,650, a 12.6% lead for the Core i9-9960X that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 10,700 (59.7% advantage for the Core i9-9960X). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 22 MB (total) on the Core i9-9960X.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9960X
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	16 / 32+167%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	4.5 GHz+5%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.1 GHz+7%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	22 MB (total)+83%
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	29,927+130%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	1,650+13%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	10,700+85%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i9-9960X uses LGA2066 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. Both support up to 128 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 4 (Core i9-9960X). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 44 (Core i9-9960X) — the Core i9-9960X offers 28 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and X299 (Core i9-9960X).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9960X
Socket	LGA1200	LGA2066
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2666
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 i9-9960X has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the Core i9-9960X supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Core i9-9960X targets HEDT. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core i9-9960X
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Gaming	HEDT

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Core i9-9960X debuted at $1684. On MSRP ($160 vs $1684), the Core i5-10400F is $1524 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 17.8 pts/$ for the Core i9-9960X — making the Core i5-10400F the 128.3% better value option.