
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

Core Ultra 9 275HX
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
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 9 275HX.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 275HX across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 17,908).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 36 MB).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Core Ultra 9 275HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.
Core Ultra 9 275HX
2025Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +89.4% higher average FPS across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+200% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on FCBGA2114 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
- ✅50% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020Core Ultra 9 275HX
2025Why buy it
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 9 275HX.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +89.4% higher average FPS across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+200% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on FCBGA2114 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 9 275HX across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 17,908).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 36 MB).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Core Ultra 9 275HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.
Trade-offs
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Core Ultra 9 275HX 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 9 275HX |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 309 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 299 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 246 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 208 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 269 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 228 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 175 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 154 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 179 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 151 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 112 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 101 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 9 275HX |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 802 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 700 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 565 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 495 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 682 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 614 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 505 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 408 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 382 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 349 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 326 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 283 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 9 275HX |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 866 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 708 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 628 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 537 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 744 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 611 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 529 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 453 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 527 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 446 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 403 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 344 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 9 275HX |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 1078 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 959 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 841 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 757 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 862 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 756 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 660 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 585 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 635 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 565 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 500 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 437 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core Ultra 9 275HX

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 9 275HX
Core Ultra 9 275HX
The Core Ultra 9 275HX is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2025-01-01. It is based on the Arrow Lake-HX (2025) architecture. It features 24 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 5.4 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2114. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 56,018 points. Launch price was $600.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX offers 24 cores / 24 threads — the Core Ultra 9 275HX has 18 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5.4 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 275HX — a 22.7% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 9 275HX (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core Ultra 9 275HX uses Arrow Lake-HX (2025) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core Ultra 9 275HX's 56,018 — a 124.5% lead for the Core Ultra 9 275HX. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 2,835, a 64.4% lead for the Core Ultra 9 275HX that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 17,908 (102.4% advantage for the Core Ultra 9 275HX). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 36 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 9 275HX.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 9 275HX |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 24 / 24+300% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz | 5.4 GHz+26% |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz+7% | 2.7 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 36 MB (total)+200% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 3 MB (per core)+1100% |
| Process | 14 nm | 3 nm-79% |
| Architecture | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | Arrow Lake-HX (2025) |
| PassMark | 13,029 | 56,018+330% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 8,191 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,454 | 2,835+95% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 5,783 | 17,908+210% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core Ultra 9 275HX uses FCBGA2114 (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 9 275HX — the Core Ultra 9 275HX supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core Ultra 9 275HX supports up to 256 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 24 (Core Ultra 9 275HX) — the Core Ultra 9 275HX offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and HM870,WM880 (Core Ultra 9 275HX).
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 9 275HX |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | FCBGA2114 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 5.0+67% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2666 | DDR5-6400+25% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB | 256 GB+100% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | No |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 24+50% |
Advanced Features
Only the Core Ultra 9 275HX has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core Ultra 9 275HX includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Graphics), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Core Ultra 9 275HX targets High-End Gaming Laptop. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Core Ultra 9 275HX rivals Ryzen 9 9955HX.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 9 275HX |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel Arc Graphics |
| Unlocked | No | Yes |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | Gaming | High-End Gaming Laptop |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












