
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

EPYC 7543
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 $10,097 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $10,257 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1226.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 6.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $10,257 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 225W, a 160W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7543.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7543 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 62,952).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7543, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
EPYC 7543
2021Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +22.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($10,257 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌246.2% higher power demand at 225W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020EPYC 7543
2021Why buy it
- ✅Costs $10,097 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $10,257 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1226.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 6.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $10,257 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 225W, a 160W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7543.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +22.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7543 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 62,952).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7543, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($10,257 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌246.2% higher power demand at 225W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 7543 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 7543 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 198 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 161 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 129 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 100 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 161 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 126 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 98 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 78 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 73 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 61 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 47 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 39 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7543 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 507 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 443 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 354 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 288 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 417 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 373 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 308 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 243 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 257 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 234 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 205 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 171 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7543 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 850 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 705 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 657 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 580 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 612 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 506 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 464 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 405 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 437 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 339 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 303 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 245 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7543 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 992 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 900 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 775 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 671 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 763 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 665 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 569 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 490 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 547 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 488 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 428 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 370 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 7543

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 7543
EPYC 7543
The EPYC 7543 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 15 March 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm+ process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 225 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 62,952 points. Launch price was $3,761.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 7543 offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 7543 has 26 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 7543 — a 15% 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 7543 uses Milan (2021−2023) (7 nm+). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 7543's 62,952 — a 131.4% lead for the EPYC 7543. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 7543.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7543 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 32 / 64+433% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz+16% | 3.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz+4% | 2.8 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 256 MB (total)+2033% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 512 kB (per core)+100% |
| Process | 14 nm | 7 nm+-50% |
| Architecture | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | Milan (2021−2023) |
| PassMark | 13,029 | 62,952+383% |
| 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 7543 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus 3200 on the EPYC 7543 — the EPYC 7543 supports 199.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7543 supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 128 GB — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 8 (EPYC 7543). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 7543) — the EPYC 7543 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 7543).
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7543 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | SP3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 4.0+33% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2666 | 3200+79900% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB+3276700% | 4096 |
| 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 7543 rivals Xeon Platinum 8380.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7543 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 7543 debuted at $10257. On MSRP ($160 vs $10257), the Core i5-10400F is $10097 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 6.1 pts/$ for the EPYC 7543 — making the Core i5-10400F the 172% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7543 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $160-98% | $10257 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.4+1234% | 6.1 |
| Release Date | 2020 | 2021 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












