Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7352

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7352

24 Cores48 Thrd155 WWMax: 3.2 GHz2019

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

40,370

+209.8%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

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 $1,190 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,350 MSRP).
✅Delivers 172.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 29.9 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,350 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 155W, a 90W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7352.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7352 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 32,000).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7352, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7352

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +10.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 29.9 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,350 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌138.5% higher power demand at 155W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

EPYC 7352

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,190 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,350 MSRP).
✅Delivers 172.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 29.9 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,350 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 155W, a 90W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7352.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +10.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7352 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 32,000).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7352, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 29.9 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,350 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌138.5% higher power demand at 155W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 7352 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7352 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 7352 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 10.1% 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 7352 is the better fit. You are getting 290.7% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 24 cores and 48 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).

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

EPYC 7352 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 7352 is 743.8% more expensive on MSRP at $1,350 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 10.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 172.3% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 29.9 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Core i5-10400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2019). That makes it the safer long-term pick.

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 7352 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7352
1080p
low	192 FPS	155 FPS
medium	152 FPS	128 FPS
high	123 FPS	108 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	86 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	130 FPS
medium	119 FPS	105 FPS
high	97 FPS	85 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	68 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	63 FPS
medium	70 FPS	54 FPS
high	55 FPS	43 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	34 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7352

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7352
1080p
low	326 FPS	354 FPS
medium	318 FPS	312 FPS
high	290 FPS	259 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	210 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	301 FPS
medium	292 FPS	273 FPS
high	267 FPS	233 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	185 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	193 FPS
medium	258 FPS	177 FPS
high	235 FPS	151 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	121 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7352

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7352
1080p
low	326 FPS	645 FPS
medium	326 FPS	526 FPS
high	326 FPS	468 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	410 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	500 FPS
medium	326 FPS	406 FPS
high	326 FPS	355 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	307 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	368 FPS
medium	326 FPS	286 FPS
high	289 FPS	244 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	196 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7352

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7352
1080p
low	326 FPS	811 FPS
medium	326 FPS	735 FPS
high	326 FPS	637 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	555 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	652 FPS
medium	326 FPS	566 FPS
high	326 FPS	488 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	414 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	445 FPS
medium	326 FPS	399 FPS
high	326 FPS	356 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	306 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7352

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 7352

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 7352

The EPYC 7352 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 7 August 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.3 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 155 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 40,370 points. Launch price was $1,350.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 7352 offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 7352 has 18 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.2 GHz on the EPYC 7352 — a 29.3% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.3 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 7352 uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 7352's 40,370 — a 102.4% lead for the EPYC 7352. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 32,000 (118.5% advantage for the EPYC 7352). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,112, a 26.7% lead for the Core i5-10400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 7,276 (22.9% advantage for the EPYC 7352). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 32 MB (total) on the EPYC 7352.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7352
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	24 / 48+300%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+34%	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+26%	2.3 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	32 MB (total)+167%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512 kB (per core)+100%
Process	14 nm	7 nm, 14 nm-50%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Zen 2 (2017−2020)
PassMark	13,029	40,370+210%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	32,000+291%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454+31%	1,112
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	7,276+26%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 7352 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. The EPYC 7352 supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 8 (EPYC 7352). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 7352) — the EPYC 7352 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,Rome (EPYC 7352).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7352
Socket	LGA1200	SP3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-3200
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	4096 GB+3100%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	128+700%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs AMD-V, SEV (EPYC 7352). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, EPYC 7352 targets High-density Computing / Server. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 7352 rivals Xeon Gold 6242.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7352
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V, SEV
Target Use	Gaming	High-density Computing / Server

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the EPYC 7352 debuted at $1350. On MSRP ($160 vs $1350), the Core i5-10400F is $1190 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 29.9 pts/$ for the EPYC 7352 — making the Core i5-10400F the 92.6% better value option.