
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

Core Ultra 5 245K
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 $159 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $319 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 5 245K.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 5 245K across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 43,417).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 24 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 136.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $319 MSRP).
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 245K moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.
Core Ultra 5 245K
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +83.3% higher average FPS across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+100% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Delivers 67.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 136.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($319 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
- ✅25% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌99.4% HIGHER MSRP$319 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
- ❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020Core Ultra 5 245K
2024Why buy it
- ✅Costs $159 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $319 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 5 245K.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +83.3% higher average FPS across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+100% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Delivers 67.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 136.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($319 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
- ✅25% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 5 245K across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 43,417).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 24 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 136.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $319 MSRP).
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 245K moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.
Trade-offs
- ❌99.4% HIGHER MSRP$319 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
- ❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Core Ultra 5 245K 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 245K |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 281 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 264 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 223 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 190 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 233 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 195 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 159 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 139 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 154 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 129 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 100 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 88 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 245K |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 687 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 578 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 480 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 438 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 596 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 522 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 437 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 377 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 353 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 315 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 300 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 263 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 245K |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 851 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 694 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 617 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 528 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 731 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 599 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 521 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 442 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 506 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 427 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 384 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 324 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 245K |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 1085 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 1015 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 889 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 808 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 892 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 789 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 687 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 611 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 604 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 542 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 489 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 432 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core Ultra 5 245K

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 245K
Core Ultra 5 245K
The Core Ultra 5 245K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 14 cores and 14 threads. Base frequency is 4.2 GHz, with boost up to 5.2 GHz. L3 cache: 24 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 43,417 points. Launch price was $319.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 245K offers 14 cores / 14 threads — the Core Ultra 5 245K has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5.2 GHz on the Core Ultra 5 245K — a 18.9% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 5 245K (base: 2.9 GHz vs 4.2 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core Ultra 5 245K uses Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core Ultra 5 245K's 43,417 — a 107.7% lead for the Core Ultra 5 245K. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 24 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 5 245K.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 245K |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 14 / 14+133% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz | 5.2 GHz+21% |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz | 4.2 GHz+45% |
| 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 | 43,417+233% |
| 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 Ultra 5 245K uses LGA1851 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus 6400 on the Core Ultra 5 245K — the Core Ultra 5 245K supports 199.8% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core Ultra 5 245K supports up to 192 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 20 (Core Ultra 5 245K) — the Core Ultra 5 245K offers 4 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 245K).
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 245K |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | LGA1851 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 5.0+67% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2666 | 6400+159900% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB+69904967% | 192 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 20+25% |
Advanced Features
Only the Core Ultra 5 245K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core Ultra 5 245K includes integrated graphics (Intel Graphics (4 Xe-cores)), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Core Ultra 5 245K rivals Ryzen 5 9600X.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 245K |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel Graphics (4 Xe-cores) |
| Unlocked | No | Yes |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | Gaming | — |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Core Ultra 5 245K debuted at $319. On MSRP ($160 vs $319), the Core i5-10400F is $159 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 136.1 pts/$ for the Core Ultra 5 245K — making the Core Ultra 5 245K the 50.3% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 245K |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $160-50% | $319 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.4 | 136.1+67% |
| Release Date | 2020 | 2024 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












