Core i5-10400F
EPYC 4484PX
Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 4484PX Performance Spectrum
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.
Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 4484PX FPS Benchmarks
Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.
Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Among Us
Apex Legends
ARC Raiders
Baldur's Gate 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 4484PX: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
Core i5-10400F
2020Why 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
2024Why 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.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 4484PX 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?
Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 4484PX Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.
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)+25500% | 1 MB (per core) |
| 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 95% 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 — 50% 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+95% |
| 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
At launch, the Core i5-10400F was priced at $160, while the EPYC 4484PX came in at $599. On launch pricing ($160 vs $599), Core i5-10400F was $439 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 84.4 pts/$ for the EPYC 4484PX — making the EPYC 4484PX the 3.6% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 4484PX |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $160-73% | $599 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.4 | 84.4+4% |
| Release Date | 2020 | 2024 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Core i5-10400F and EPYC 4484PX
