Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7552

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Core family

·······

Buy on Amazon

EPYC 7552

48 Cores96 Thrd200 WWMax: 3.3 GHz2019

EPYC family

·······

Buy on Amazon

Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7552 Performance Spectrum

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

57,414

+340.7%

Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

Ryzen 7 9700X

Ryzen 9 5900XT

Ryzen 9 7900X3D

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

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 7552 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.

Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7552: 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

2020

Why buy it

✅Costs $3,865 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $4,025 MSRP).
✅Delivers 470.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 14.3 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $4,025 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 200W, a 135W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7552.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7552 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 57,414).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7552, which brings 48 cores / 96 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7552

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +13.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 48 cores / 96 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 14.3 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($4,025 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌207.7% higher power demand at 200W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 7552 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. EPYC 7552 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-10400F is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 7552 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 13.0% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests. It also has a clear cache advantage at 192 MB versus 12 MB.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7552 is the stronger fit. You are getting 340.7% better PassMark, backed by 48 cores and 96 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 1500% larger total L3 cache (192 MB vs 12 MB).

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

EPYC 7552 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. EPYC 7552 comes in 2415.6% more expensive on MSRP at $4,025 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it still gives you a 13.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 470.9% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 14.3 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

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

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

Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7552 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 7552

The EPYC 7552 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 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.3 GHz. L3 cache: 192 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 57,414 points. Launch price was $4,025.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 7552 offers 48 cores / 96 threads — the EPYC 7552 has 42 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.3 GHz on the EPYC 7552 — a 26.3% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 7552 uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 7552's 57,414 — a 126% lead for the EPYC 7552. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 192 MB (total) on the EPYC 7552.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7552
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	48 / 96+700%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+30%	3.3 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+32%	2.2 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	192 MB (total)+1500%
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	57,414+341%
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 7552 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 7552 — the EPYC 7552 supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7552 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 7552). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 7552) — the EPYC 7552 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 7552).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7552
Socket	LGA1200	SP3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	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. 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 7552 rivals Xeon Platinum 8362.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7552
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

At launch, the Core i5-10400F was priced at $160, while the EPYC 7552 came in at $4025. On launch pricing ($160 vs $4025), Core i5-10400F was $3865 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 14.3 pts/$ for the EPYC 7552 — making the Core i5-10400F the 140.4% better value option.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7552
MSRP	$160-96%	$4025
Performance per Dollar	81.4+469%	14.3
Release Date	2020	2019

Search Core i5-10400F on Amazon

Search EPYC 7552 on Amazon

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.