
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

Core Ultra 5 235T
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
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
2020Why buy it
- ✅Costs $87 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $247 MSRP).
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 5 235T.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 5 235T across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 12,900).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 24 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 129.8 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $247 MSRP).
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 235T moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.
Core Ultra 5 235T
2025Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +101.4% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+100% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Delivers 59.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 129.8 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($247 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
- ✅50% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌54.4% HIGHER MSRP$247 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020Core Ultra 5 235T
2025Why buy it
- ✅Costs $87 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $247 MSRP).
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 5 235T.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +101.4% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+100% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Delivers 59.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 129.8 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($247 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
- ✅50% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 5 235T across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 12,900).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 24 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 129.8 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $247 MSRP).
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 235T moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.
Trade-offs
- ❌54.4% HIGHER MSRP$247 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Core Ultra 5 235T better than Core i5-10400F?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 235T |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 262 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 252 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 213 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 180 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 220 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 189 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 154 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 134 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 149 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 127 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 99 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 87 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 235T |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 359 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 306 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 257 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 232 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 313 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 279 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 235 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 200 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 187 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 170 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 162 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 141 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 235T |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 801 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 681 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 610 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 522 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 727 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 590 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 516 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 441 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 504 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 422 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 377 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 318 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 235T |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 801 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 801 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 757 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 678 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 791 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 700 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 606 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 531 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 554 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 500 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 446 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 392 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core Ultra 5 235T

Core i5-10400F
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 Ultra 5 235T
Core Ultra 5 235T
The Core Ultra 5 235T is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 7 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 14 cores and 14 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 24 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 32,053 points. Launch price was $247.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 235T offers 14 cores / 14 threads — the Core Ultra 5 235T has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5 GHz on the Core Ultra 5 235T — a 15.1% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 5 235T (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core Ultra 5 235T uses Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core Ultra 5 235T's 32,053 — a 84.4% lead for the Core Ultra 5 235T. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 2,760, a 62% lead for the Core Ultra 5 235T that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 12,900 (76.2% advantage for the Core Ultra 5 235T). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 24 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 5 235T.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 235T |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 14 / 14+133% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz | 5 GHz+16% |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz+32% | 2.2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 24 MB (total)+100% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 3 MB (per core)+1100% |
| Process | 14 nm | 3 nm-79% |
| Architecture | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| PassMark | 13,029 | 32,053+146% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 8,191 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,454 | 2,760+90% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 5,783 | 12,900+123% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core Ultra 5 235T uses LGA1851 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 5 235T — the Core Ultra 5 235T supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core Ultra 5 235T supports up to 192 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 40% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 24 (Core Ultra 5 235T) — the Core Ultra 5 235T offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and Z890,B860 (Core Ultra 5 235T).
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 235T |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | LGA1851 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 5.0+67% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2666 | DDR5-6400+25% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB | 192 GB+50% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 24+50% |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core Ultra 5 235T includes integrated graphics (Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Core Ultra 5 235T targets Mainstream Desktop. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 235T |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | Gaming | Mainstream Desktop |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Core Ultra 5 235T debuted at $247. On MSRP ($160 vs $247), the Core i5-10400F is $87 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 129.8 pts/$ for the Core Ultra 5 235T — making the Core Ultra 5 235T the 45.8% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 235T |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $160-35% | $247 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.4 | 129.8+59% |
| Release Date | 2020 | 2025 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












