Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7303

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Core family

·······

Buy on Amazon

EPYC 7303

16 Cores32 Thrd130 WWMax: 3.4 GHz2023

EPYC family

·······

Buy on Amazon

Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7303 Performance Spectrum

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

28,572

+119.3%

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.

Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7303 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.

Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7303: 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

2020

Why buy it

✅Draws 65W instead of 130W, a 65W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7303.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7303 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 18,000).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7303, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while EPYC 7303 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

EPYC 7303

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌100% higher power demand at 130W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 7303 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. EPYC 7303 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-10400F is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 7303 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 12.6% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7303 is the stronger fit. You are getting 119.8% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB).

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

EPYC 7303 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. EPYC 7303 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it still gives you a 12.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

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

EPYC 7303 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2020), 433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 16 cores / 32 threads instead of 6/12. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7303 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 7303

The EPYC 7303 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 5 September 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 28,572 points. Launch price was $604.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 7303 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the EPYC 7303 has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.4 GHz on the EPYC 7303 — a 23.4% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 7303 uses Milan (2021−2023) (7 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 7303's 28,572 — a 74.7% lead for the EPYC 7303. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 18,000 (74.9% advantage for the EPYC 7303). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,960, a 29.6% lead for the EPYC 7303 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 11,000 (62.2% advantage for the EPYC 7303). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 7303.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7303
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	16 / 32+167%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+26%	3.4 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+21%	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	64 MB (total)+433%
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	28,572+119%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	18,000+120%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	1,960+35%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	11,000+90%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 7303 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR4-3200 on the EPYC 7303 — the EPYC 7303 supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7303 supports up to 204 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 59.4% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 8 (EPYC 7303). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 7303) — the EPYC 7303 offers 112 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and SP3 platform (EPYC 7303).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7303
Socket	LGA1200	SP3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-3200+20%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	204 GB+59%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	128+700%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the EPYC 7303 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs AMD-V, SVM (EPYC 7303). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, EPYC 7303 targets High-frequency Server Workloads. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 7303 rivals Xeon Gold 6334.