Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 72F3

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 72F3

8 Cores16 Thrd180 WWMax: 4.1 GHz2021

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

27,252

+109.2%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX

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

✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 72F3.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 72F3 across 31 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 27,252).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 72F3, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while EPYC 72F3 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

EPYC 72F3

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +49.9% higher average FPS across 31 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.

Trade-offs

❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

EPYC 72F3

2021

Why buy it

✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 72F3.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +49.9% higher average FPS across 31 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 72F3 across 31 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 27,252).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 72F3, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while EPYC 72F3 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Trade-offs

❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 72F3 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 72F3 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 72F3 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 49.9% more average FPS across 31 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 256 MB vs 12 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 72F3 is the better fit. You are getting 109.2% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 2033.3% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 12 MB).

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

EPYC 72F3 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 72F3 is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 49.9% average FPS lead across 31 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

EPYC 72F3 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2021 vs 2020), 3D V-Cache and a much larger 256 MB L3 cache instead of 12 MB, and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 16 threads instead of 6/12. That extra cache should hold up really well in CPU-limited games and high-refresh builds.

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 72F3 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 72F3
1080p
low	192 FPS	231 FPS
medium	152 FPS	184 FPS
high	123 FPS	149 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	107 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	196 FPS
medium	119 FPS	151 FPS
high	97 FPS	117 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	86 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	77 FPS
medium	70 FPS	63 FPS
high	55 FPS	49 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	40 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 72F3

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 72F3
1080p
low	326 FPS	583 FPS
medium	318 FPS	510 FPS
high	290 FPS	412 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	360 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	489 FPS
medium	292 FPS	436 FPS
high	267 FPS	362 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	300 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	304 FPS
medium	258 FPS	274 FPS
high	235 FPS	245 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	220 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 72F3

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 72F3
1080p
low	326 FPS	681 FPS
medium	326 FPS	681 FPS
high	326 FPS	681 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	681 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	681 FPS
medium	326 FPS	597 FPS
high	326 FPS	534 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	466 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	485 FPS
medium	326 FPS	387 FPS
high	289 FPS	343 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	277 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 72F3

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 72F3
1080p
low	326 FPS	681 FPS
medium	326 FPS	681 FPS
high	326 FPS	681 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	681 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	681 FPS
medium	326 FPS	681 FPS
high	326 FPS	655 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	565 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	643 FPS
medium	326 FPS	574 FPS
high	326 FPS	499 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	427 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 72F3

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 72F3

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 72F3

The EPYC 72F3 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 15 March 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 4.1 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm+ process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 27,252 points. Launch price was $2,468.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 72F3 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the EPYC 72F3 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.1 GHz on the EPYC 72F3 — a 4.8% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.7 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 72F3 uses Milan (2021−2023) (7 nm+). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 72F3's 27,252 — a 70.6% lead for the EPYC 72F3. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 72F3.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 72F3
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 16+33%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+5%	4.1 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.7 GHz+28%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	256 MB (total)+2033%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512 kB (per core)+100%
Process	14 nm	7 nm+-50%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Milan (2021−2023)
PassMark	13,029	27,252+109%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 72F3 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 72F3
Socket	LGA1200	SP3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	—
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) / not specified (EPYC 72F3). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.