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).
✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 9 285K.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 285K across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 45,563).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 36 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 114.6 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 9 285K moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.

Core Ultra 9 285K

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +115.0% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+200% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Delivers 40.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 114.6 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
❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Core Ultra 9 285K

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $429 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 9 285K.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +115.0% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+200% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Delivers 40.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 114.6 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 285K across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 45,563).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 36 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 114.6 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 9 285K moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌
268.1% HIGHER MSRP
$589 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 9 285K better than Core i5-10400F?

Yes. Core Ultra 9 285K is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 115.0% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data, 456.3% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, 417.9% 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 285K is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 115.0% more average FPS across 4 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 285K is the better fit. You are getting 456.3% 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 285K is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 9 285K is 268.1% more expensive on MSRP at $589 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 115.0% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 40.7% better value on MSRP (114.6 vs 81.4 PassMark/$), 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 285K is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 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 285K Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 9 285K
1080p
low	192 FPS	341 FPS
medium	152 FPS	323 FPS
high	123 FPS	267 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	226 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	288 FPS
medium	119 FPS	239 FPS
high	97 FPS	184 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	162 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	188 FPS
medium	70 FPS	155 FPS
high	55 FPS	115 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	103 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 9 285K

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 9 285K
1080p
low	326 FPS	899 FPS
medium	318 FPS	778 FPS
high	290 FPS	623 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	544 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	756 FPS
medium	292 FPS	677 FPS
high	267 FPS	557 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	447 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	421 FPS
medium	258 FPS	383 FPS
high	235 FPS	358 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	310 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 9 285K

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 9 285K
1080p
low	326 FPS	879 FPS
medium	326 FPS	718 FPS
high	326 FPS	637 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	545 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	750 FPS
medium	326 FPS	616 FPS
high	326 FPS	534 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	458 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	534 FPS
medium	326 FPS	459 FPS
high	289 FPS	415 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	352 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 9 285K

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 9 285K
1080p
low	326 FPS	1202 FPS
medium	326 FPS	1015 FPS
high	326 FPS	939 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	846 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	930 FPS
medium	326 FPS	811 FPS
high	326 FPS	713 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	633 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	685 FPS
medium	326 FPS	606 FPS
high	326 FPS	539 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 9 285K

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

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

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 285K

The Core Ultra 9 285K 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 24 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 5.6 GHz. L3 cache: 36 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: 67,482 points. Launch price was $589.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285K offers 24 cores / 24 threads — the Core Ultra 9 285K has 18 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5.6 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 285K — a 26.3% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285K (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.7 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core Ultra 9 285K uses Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core Ultra 9 285K's 67,482 — a 135.3% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285K. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 45,563 (139% advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285K). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 3,200, a 75% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285K that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 22,563 (118.4% advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285K). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 36 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 9 285K.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 9 285K
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	24 / 24+300%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	5.6 GHz+30%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.7 GHz+28%
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	67,482+418%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	45,563+456%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	3,200+120%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	22,563+290%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core Ultra 9 285K 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 285K — the Core Ultra 9 285K supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core Ultra 9 285K 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 285K) — the Core Ultra 9 285K offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and Z890 (Core Ultra 9 285K).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 9 285K
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

Only the Core Ultra 9 285K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs true (Core Ultra 9 285K). The Core Ultra 9 285K includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Graphics 64EU), 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 9 285K rivals Ryzen 9 9950X.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 9 285K
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	Intel Arc Graphics 64EU
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	true
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Core Ultra 9 285K 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 114.6 pts/$ for the Core Ultra 9 285K — making the Core Ultra 9 285K the 33.8% better value option.