
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

EPYC 7451
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 180W, a 115W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7451.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7451 across 47 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 26,639).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7451, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads.
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while EPYC 7451 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
EPYC 7451
2017Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +22.9% higher average FPS across 47 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.
Trade-offs
- ❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020EPYC 7451
2017Why buy it
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7451.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +22.9% higher average FPS across 47 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.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7451 across 47 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 26,639).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7451, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads.
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while EPYC 7451 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
Trade-offs
- ❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 7451 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 7451 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 7451 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 355 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 321 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 271 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 219 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 306 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 280 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 239 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 187 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 191 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 176 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 152 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 122 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7451 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 7451 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 666 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 666 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 659 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 571 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 666 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 587 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 503 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 426 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 476 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 429 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 378 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 324 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 7451

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 7451
EPYC 7451
The EPYC 7451 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 2.3 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: TR4. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 26,639 points. Launch price was $2,400.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 7451 offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 7451 has 18 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.2 GHz on the EPYC 7451 — 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 7451 uses Naples (2017−2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 7451's 26,639 — a 68.6% lead for the EPYC 7451. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 7451.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7451 |
|---|---|---|
| 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) | 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 | 26,639+104% |
| 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 7451 uses TR4 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7451 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 7451). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7451 |
|---|---|---|
| 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.












