
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

EPYC 7351
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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
2020Why buy it
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 155W, a 90W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7351.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7351 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 23,226).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7351, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads.
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while EPYC 7351 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
EPYC 7351
2017Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +28.0% higher average FPS across 4 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.
Trade-offs
- ❌138.5% higher power demand at 155W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020EPYC 7351
2017Why buy it
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 155W, a 90W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7351.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +28.0% higher average FPS across 4 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.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7351 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 23,226).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7351, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads.
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while EPYC 7351 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
Trade-offs
- ❌138.5% higher power demand at 155W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 7351 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?
Games Benchmarks
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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7351 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 183 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 160 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 128 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 102 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 151 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 126 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 77 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 70 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 62 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 48 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 39 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7351 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 353 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 321 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 271 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 219 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 305 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 279 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 239 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 187 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 190 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 176 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 151 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 122 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7351 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 581 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 513 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 462 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 396 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 513 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 428 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 376 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 323 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 381 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 305 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 269 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 219 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7351 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 581 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 581 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 581 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 569 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 581 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 581 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 504 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 425 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 477 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 430 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 378 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 323 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 7351

Core i5-10400F
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 7351
EPYC 7351
The EPYC 7351 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 June 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Naples (2017−2018) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.9 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: TR4. Thermal design power (TDP): 170 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 23,226 points. Launch price was $1,100.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 7351 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the EPYC 7351 has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 2.9 GHz on the EPYC 7351 — a 38.9% 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 7351 uses Naples (2017−2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 7351's 23,226 — a 56.3% lead for the EPYC 7351. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 7351.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7351 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 16 / 32+167% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz+48% | 2.9 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz+21% | 2.4 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 64 MB (total)+433% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 512K (per core)+100% |
| Process | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | Naples (2017−2018) |
| PassMark | 13,029 | 23,226+78% |
| 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 7351 uses TR4 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7351 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | TR4 |
| 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 7351). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7351 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | — |
| Target Use | Gaming | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












