
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

EPYC 7401
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
- ✅Costs $1,340 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,500 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 121.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 36.9 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,500 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 155W, a 90W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7401.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7401 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 55,280).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7401, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
EPYC 7401
2017Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +18.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 36.9 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,500 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌138.5% higher power demand at 155W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020EPYC 7401
2017Why buy it
- ✅Costs $1,340 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,500 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 121.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 36.9 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,500 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 155W, a 90W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7401.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +18.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7401 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 55,280).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7401, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 36.9 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,500 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 7401 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 7401 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 187 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 165 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 132 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 105 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 153 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 127 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 97 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 78 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 71 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 63 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 48 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 39 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7401 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 207 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 188 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 160 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 131 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 178 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 163 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 141 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 111 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 112 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 103 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 92 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 75 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7401 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 620 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 518 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 466 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 399 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 517 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 432 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 378 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 325 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 383 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 308 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 270 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 220 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7401 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 834 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 758 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 651 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 561 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 667 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 584 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 500 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 420 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 475 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 427 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 375 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 320 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 7401

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 7401
EPYC 7401
The EPYC 7401 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 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 3 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: 55,280 points. Launch price was $1,850.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 7401 offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 7401 has 18 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3 GHz on the EPYC 7401 — a 35.6% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 7401 uses Naples (2017−2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 7401's 55,280 — a 123.7% lead for the EPYC 7401. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 7401.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7401 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 24 / 48+300% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz+43% | 3 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz+45% | 2 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 | 55,280+324% |
| 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 7401 uses TR4 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus 2666 on the EPYC 7401 — the EPYC 7401 supports 199.4% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7401 supports up to 2048 of RAM compared to 128 GB — 176.5% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 8 (EPYC 7401). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 7401) — the EPYC 7401 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 (EPYC 7401).
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7401 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | TR4 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 4.0+33% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2666 | 2666+66550% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB+6553500% | 2048 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 8+300% |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 128+700% |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 7401 rivals Xeon Silver 4114.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7401 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | — | None |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | Gaming | — |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the EPYC 7401 debuted at $1500. On MSRP ($160 vs $1500), the Core i5-10400F is $1340 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 36.9 pts/$ for the EPYC 7401 — making the Core i5-10400F the 75.4% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7401 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $160-89% | $1500 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.4+121% | 36.9 |
| Release Date | 2020 | 2017 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












