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

✅Better for gaming: +5.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 12) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 7 164U.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 8,766).
❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Core Ultra 7 164U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 164U moves to FCBGA2551 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 164U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core Ultra 7 164U

2023

Why buy it

✅+7% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2551 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc, while Core i5-10400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Core Ultra 7 164U

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 12) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 7 164U.

Why buy it

✅+7% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2551 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc, while Core i5-10400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 8,766).
❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Core Ultra 7 164U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 164U moves to FCBGA2551 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 164U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-10400F better than Core Ultra 7 164U?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Core i5-10400F is ahead with a 5.6% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 7 164U pulls ahead with 7% better Cinebench R23 multi-core.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 7 164U is the better fit. You are getting 7% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 12 cores and 14 threads.

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

Core i5-10400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-10400F is at an unclear MSRP at $160 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you a 5.6% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that Core Ultra 7 164U is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 7% better Cinebench R23 multi-core. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core Ultra 7 164U is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2020), a healthier platform with FCBGA2551 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200, and more multi-core headroom with 12 cores / 14 threads instead of 6/12. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

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 Ultra 7 164U Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 164U
1080p
low	192 FPS	276 FPS
medium	152 FPS	248 FPS
high	123 FPS	209 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	180 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	230 FPS
medium	119 FPS	185 FPS
high	97 FPS	152 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	133 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	160 FPS
medium	70 FPS	130 FPS
high	55 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	88 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 7 164U

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 164U
1080p
low	326 FPS	214 FPS
medium	318 FPS	176 FPS
high	290 FPS	159 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	140 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	181 FPS
medium	292 FPS	155 FPS
high	267 FPS	143 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	122 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	141 FPS
medium	258 FPS	124 FPS
high	235 FPS	118 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	101 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 7 164U

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 164U
1080p
low	326 FPS	316 FPS
medium	326 FPS	316 FPS
high	326 FPS	316 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	316 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	316 FPS
medium	326 FPS	316 FPS
high	326 FPS	316 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	316 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	316 FPS
medium	326 FPS	316 FPS
high	289 FPS	316 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	316 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 7 164U

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 164U
1080p
low	326 FPS	316 FPS
medium	326 FPS	316 FPS
high	326 FPS	316 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	316 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	316 FPS
medium	326 FPS	316 FPS
high	326 FPS	316 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	316 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	316 FPS
medium	326 FPS	316 FPS
high	326 FPS	316 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	316 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 7 164U

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core Ultra 7 164U

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 7 164U

The Core Ultra 7 164U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 December 2023 (1 year ago). It is based on the Meteor Lake-U (2023) architecture. It features 12 cores and 14 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on 7 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2551. Thermal design power (TDP): + 12 MB. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 12,625 points. Launch price was $448.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 164U offers 12 cores / 14 threads — the Core Ultra 7 164U has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.8 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 164U — a 11% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 164U (base: 2.9 GHz vs 1.1 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core Ultra 7 164U uses Meteor Lake-U (2023) (7 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core Ultra 7 164U's 12,625 — a 3.1% lead for the Core i5-10400F. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 8,766 (6.8% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 164U). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 2,131, a 37.8% lead for the Core Ultra 7 164U that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 8,973 (43.2% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 164U). Both processors carry 12 MB (total) of L3 cache.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 164U
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	12 / 14+100%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	4.8 GHz+12%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+164%	1.1 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	12 MB (total)
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	2 MB (per core)+700%
Process	14 nm	7 nm-50%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Meteor Lake-U (2023)
PassMark	13,029+3%	12,625
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	8,766+7%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	2,131+47%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	8,973+55%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core Ultra 7 164U uses FCBGA2551 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus LPDDR5x-6400 on the Core Ultra 7 164U — the Core Ultra 7 164U supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i5-10400F supports up to 128 GB of RAM compared to 64 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 12 (Core Ultra 7 164U) — the Core i5-10400F offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and Meteor Lake-U (Core Ultra 7 164U).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 164U
Socket	LGA1200	FCBGA2551
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	LPDDR5x-6400+25%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+100%	64 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16+33%	12

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core Ultra 7 164U includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Core Ultra 7 164U targets Enthusiast. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Core Ultra 7 164U rivals Ryzen 7 7840U.