Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 4484PX

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 4484PX

12 Cores24 Thrd120 WWMax: 5.6 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

50,547

+288.0%

Ryzen 7 5800X3D

Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375

Ryzen 9 5900X

Ryzen 9 7845HX

Ryzen 9 9950X

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

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

2020

Why buy it

✅Costs $439 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 120W, a 55W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 4484PX.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 4484PX across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 24,500).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 4484PX, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads and 28 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 4484PX moves to AM5 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while EPYC 4484PX can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

EPYC 4484PX

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +68.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 12 cores / 24 threads, plus 28 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅Newer platform on AM5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
✅75% more PCIe lanes (28 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon Graphics, while Core i5-10400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌
274.4% HIGHER MSRP
$599 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
❌84.6% higher power demand at 120W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

EPYC 4484PX

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $439 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 120W, a 55W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 4484PX.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +68.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 12 cores / 24 threads, plus 28 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅Newer platform on AM5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
✅75% more PCIe lanes (28 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon Graphics, while Core i5-10400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 4484PX across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 24,500).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 4484PX, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads and 28 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 4484PX moves to AM5 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while EPYC 4484PX can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌
274.4% HIGHER MSRP
$599 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
❌84.6% higher power demand at 120W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 4484PX better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 4484PX makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-10400F is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 4484PX is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 68.1% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 128 MB vs 12 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 4484PX is the better fit. You are getting 199.1% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 12 cores and 24 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 966.7% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 12 MB).

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

EPYC 4484PX is the smarter buy today. EPYC 4484PX is 274.4% more expensive on MSRP at $599 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 68.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 3.6% better value on MSRP (84.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$), 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?

EPYC 4484PX is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2020), a healthier platform with AM5 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200, 3D V-Cache and a much larger 128 MB L3 cache instead of 12 MB, more multi-core headroom with 12 cores / 24 threads instead of 6/12, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. 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

EPYC 4484PX Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 4484PX
1080p
low	192 FPS	271 FPS
medium	152 FPS	248 FPS
high	123 FPS	212 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	186 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	263 FPS
medium	119 FPS	216 FPS
high	97 FPS	171 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	154 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	182 FPS
medium	70 FPS	149 FPS
high	55 FPS	112 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	100 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 4484PX

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 4484PX
1080p
low	326 FPS	806 FPS
medium	318 FPS	657 FPS
high	290 FPS	488 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	404 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	648 FPS
medium	292 FPS	551 FPS
high	267 FPS	425 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	329 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	361 FPS
medium	258 FPS	311 FPS
high	235 FPS	273 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	230 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 4484PX

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 4484PX
1080p
low	326 FPS	1025 FPS
medium	326 FPS	1163 FPS
high	326 FPS	1100 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	875 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	970 FPS
medium	326 FPS	877 FPS
high	326 FPS	804 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	656 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	596 FPS
medium	326 FPS	518 FPS
high	289 FPS	465 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	393 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 4484PX

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 4484PX
1080p
low	326 FPS	1264 FPS
medium	326 FPS	1015 FPS
high	326 FPS	993 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	865 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	1035 FPS
medium	326 FPS	897 FPS
high	326 FPS	772 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	647 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	759 FPS
medium	326 FPS	662 FPS
high	326 FPS	577 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 4484PX

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 4484PX

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.

EPYC 4484PX

The EPYC 4484PX is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 21 May 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Raphael (2023−2025) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 4.4 GHz, with boost up to 5.6 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: AM5. Thermal design power (TDP): 120 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 50,547 points. Launch price was $599.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 4484PX offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the EPYC 4484PX has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5.6 GHz on the EPYC 4484PX — a 26.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 4484PX (base: 2.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 4484PX uses Raphael (2023−2025) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 4484PX's 50,547 — a 118% lead for the EPYC 4484PX. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 24,500 (99.8% advantage for the EPYC 4484PX). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 2,950, a 67.9% lead for the EPYC 4484PX that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 17,500 (100.6% advantage for the EPYC 4484PX). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 4484PX.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 4484PX
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	12 / 24+100%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	5.6 GHz+30%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	4.4 GHz+52%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	128 MB (total)+967%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	1 MB (per core)+300%
Process	14 nm	5 nm-64%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Raphael (2023−2025)
PassMark	13,029	50,547+288%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	24,500+199%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	2,950+103%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	17,500+203%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 4484PX uses AM5 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR5-5200 on the EPYC 4484PX — the EPYC 4484PX supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 4484PX 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 28 (EPYC 4484PX) — the EPYC 4484PX offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and B650,X670,X870 (EPYC 4484PX).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 4484PX
Socket	LGA1200	AM5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR5-5200+25%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	192 GB+50%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	28+75%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the EPYC 4484PX supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs AMD-V, AMD-Vi (EPYC 4484PX). The EPYC 4484PX includes integrated graphics (Radeon Graphics), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, EPYC 4484PX targets Workstation / Server. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 4484PX rivals Ryzen 9 7900X3D.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 4484PX
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	Radeon Graphics
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V, AMD-Vi
Target Use	Gaming	Workstation / Server

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the EPYC 4484PX debuted at $599. On MSRP ($160 vs $599), the Core i5-10400F is $439 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 84.4 pts/$ for the EPYC 4484PX — making the EPYC 4484PX the 3.6% better value option.