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 $429 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 9 285.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 285 across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 40,000).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 36 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 97.5 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 9 285 moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.

Core Ultra 9 285

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +87.7% higher average FPS across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+200% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Delivers 19.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 97.5 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($589 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

❌
268.1% HIGHER MSRP
$589 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Core Ultra 9 285

2025

Why buy it

✅Costs $429 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 9 285.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +87.7% higher average FPS across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+200% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Delivers 19.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 97.5 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($589 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 9 285 across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 40,000).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 36 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 97.5 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 9 285 moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌
268.1% HIGHER MSRP
$589 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 9 285 better than Core i5-10400F?

Yes. Core Ultra 9 285 is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 87.7% average FPS lead across 6 shared CPU game tests in our data, 388.3% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, 340.9% higher 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 9 285 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 87.7% more average FPS across 6 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 9 285 is the better fit. You are getting 388.3% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 24 cores and 24 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 200% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Core Ultra 9 285 is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 9 285 is 268.1% more expensive on MSRP at $589 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 87.7% average FPS lead across 6 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 19.8% better value on MSRP (97.5 vs 81.4 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper. That said, if you already own a compatible LGA1200 + DDR4 setup, Core i5-10400F can still make sense as a platform-matched option because it avoids a motherboard and RAM swap.

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

Core Ultra 9 285 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2020), a healthier platform with LGA1851 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200, 200% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 12 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 24 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 9 285 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 9 285
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

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 9 285

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 9 285
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

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 9 285

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 9 285
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

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 9 285

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 9 285
1080p
low	326 FPS	1075 FPS
medium	326 FPS	957 FPS
high	326 FPS	839 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	754 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	860 FPS
medium	326 FPS	754 FPS
high	326 FPS	659 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	583 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	633 FPS
medium	326 FPS	564 FPS
high	326 FPS	499 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 9 285

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core Ultra 9 285

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 9 285

The Core Ultra 9 285 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in Janeiro 2025 (recentemente). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 24 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 5.5 GHz. L3 cache: 36 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: 57,442 points. Launch price was $579.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285 offers 24 cores / 24 threads — the Core Ultra 9 285 has 18 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5.5 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 285 — a 24.5% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285 (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core Ultra 9 285's 57,442 — a 126% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 40,000 (132% advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 3,000, a 69.4% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 20,000 (110.3% advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 36 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 9 285.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 9 285
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	24 / 24+300%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	5.5 GHz+28%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+16%	2.5 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-S (2024−2025)
PassMark	13,029	57,442+341%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	40,000+388%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	3,000+106%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	20,000+246%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core Ultra 9 285 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 9 285 — the Core Ultra 9 285 supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core Ultra 9 285 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 9 285) — the Core Ultra 9 285 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and Intel 800 Series (Core Ultra 9 285).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 9 285
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. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs Yes (Core Ultra 9 285). The Core Ultra 9 285 includes integrated graphics (Arc Graphics), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Core Ultra 9 285 targets High-End Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 9 285
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	Arc Graphics
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	Yes
Target Use	Gaming	High-End Gaming

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Core Ultra 9 285 debuted at $589. On MSRP ($160 vs $589), the Core i5-10400F is $429 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 97.5 pts/$ for the Core Ultra 9 285 — making the Core Ultra 9 285 the 18% better value option.