Core i5-10400F
EPYC 7402
Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7402 Performance Spectrum
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 7402 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.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Among Us
Apex Legends
ARC Raiders
Baldur's Gate 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7402: 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
2020Why buy it
- ✅Costs $1,623 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,783 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 215.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 25.8 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,783 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7402.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7402 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 28,546).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 32 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7402, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
EPYC 7402
2019Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +10.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 25.8 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,783 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 7402 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?
Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7402 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 7402
The EPYC 7402 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 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.35 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): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 46,012 points. Launch price was $1,783.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 7402 offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 7402 has 18 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.35 GHz on the EPYC 7402 — a 24.8% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 7402 uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 7402's 46,012 — a 111.7% lead for the EPYC 7402. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 28,546 (110.8% advantage for the EPYC 7402). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,299, a 11.3% lead for the Core i5-10400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 12,622 (74.3% advantage for the EPYC 7402). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 32 MB (total) on the EPYC 7402.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7402 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 24 / 48+300% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz+28% | 3.35 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz+4% | 2.8 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 | 46,012+253% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 8,191 | 28,546+249% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,454+12% | 1,299 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 5,783 | 12,622+118% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 7402 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 7402 — the EPYC 7402 supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7402 supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 3100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 8 (EPYC 7402). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 7402) — the EPYC 7402 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 7402).
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7402 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 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, IOMMU (EPYC 7402). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, EPYC 7402 targets Server / Workstation. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 7402 rivals Xeon Gold 6242.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7402 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | AMD-V, SEV, IOMMU |
| Target Use | Gaming | Server / Workstation |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Core i5-10400F was priced at $160, while the EPYC 7402 came in at $1783. On launch pricing ($160 vs $1783), Core i5-10400F was $1623 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 25.8 pts/$ for the EPYC 7402 — making the Core i5-10400F the 103.7% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7402 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $160-91% | $1783 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.4+216% | 25.8 |
| Release Date | 2020 | 2019 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Core i5-10400F and EPYC 7402
