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 $360 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $520 MSRP).
✅Delivers 119.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 37.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $520 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 7 266V.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 266V across 16 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 19,274).
❌282.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 17W.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 266V moves to FCBGA2833 and DDR5.

Core Ultra 7 266V

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +26.8% higher average FPS across 16 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 17W instead of 65W, a 48W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2833 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 37.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($520 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Core Ultra 7 266V

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $360 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $520 MSRP).
✅Delivers 119.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 37.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $520 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 7 266V.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +26.8% higher average FPS across 16 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 17W instead of 65W, a 48W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2833 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 266V across 16 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 19,274).
❌282.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 17W.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 266V moves to FCBGA2833 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 37.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($520 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 7 266V better than Core i5-10400F?

Yes. Core Ultra 7 266V is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 26.8% average FPS lead across 16 shared CPU game tests in our data, 47.9% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core Ultra 7 266V is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 26.8% more average FPS across 16 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 7 266V is the better fit. You are getting 47.9% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads.

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

Core Ultra 7 266V is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core Ultra 7 266V is 225.0% more expensive on MSRP at $520 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 26.8% average FPS lead across 16 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 119.7% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 37.1 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Core Ultra 7 266V is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2020), a healthier platform with FCBGA2833 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200, and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 8 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 266V Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 266V
1080p
low	192 FPS	272 FPS
medium	152 FPS	243 FPS
high	123 FPS	205 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	176 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	230 FPS
medium	119 FPS	185 FPS
high	97 FPS	152 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	134 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	161 FPS
medium	70 FPS	130 FPS
high	55 FPS	101 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	89 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 7 266V

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 266V
1080p
low	326 FPS	236 FPS
medium	318 FPS	195 FPS
high	290 FPS	176 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	155 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	210 FPS
medium	292 FPS	181 FPS
high	267 FPS	164 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	139 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	155 FPS
medium	258 FPS	138 FPS
high	235 FPS	132 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	114 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 7 266V

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 266V
1080p
low	326 FPS	482 FPS
medium	326 FPS	482 FPS
high	326 FPS	482 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	482 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	482 FPS
medium	326 FPS	482 FPS
high	326 FPS	482 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	468 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	482 FPS
medium	326 FPS	462 FPS
high	289 FPS	404 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	336 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 7 266V

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 266V
1080p
low	326 FPS	482 FPS
medium	326 FPS	482 FPS
high	326 FPS	482 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	482 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	482 FPS
medium	326 FPS	482 FPS
high	326 FPS	482 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	482 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	482 FPS
medium	326 FPS	482 FPS
high	326 FPS	480 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	418 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 7 266V

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core Ultra 7 266V

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 266V

The Core Ultra 7 266V is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 September 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Lunar Lake (2024) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 2.5 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2833. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 19,274 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 266V offers 8 cores / 8 threads — the Core Ultra 7 266V has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 266V — a 15.1% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 266V (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 7 266V uses Lunar Lake (2024) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core Ultra 7 266V's 19,274 — a 38.7% lead for the Core Ultra 7 266V. Both processors carry 12 MB (total) of L3 cache.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 266V
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 8+33%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	5 GHz+16%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+32%	2.2 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	12 MB (total)
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	2.5 MB (per core)+900%
Process	14 nm	3 nm-79%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Lunar Lake (2024)
PassMark	13,029	19,274+48%
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 7 266V uses FCBGA2833 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 266V
Socket	LGA1200	FCBGA2833
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
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 Ultra 7 266V). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 266V
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 Ultra 7 266V debuted at $520. On MSRP ($160 vs $520), the Core i5-10400F is $360 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 37.1 pts/$ for the Core Ultra 7 266V — making the Core i5-10400F the 74.9% better value option.