Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7552

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7552

48 Cores96 Thrd200 WWMax: 3.3 GHz2019

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

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.

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

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 6 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: +23.5% higher average FPS across 6 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.

Core i5-10400F

2020

EPYC 7552

2019

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.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +23.5% higher average FPS across 6 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

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7552 across 6 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.

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 in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7552 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-10400F is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 7552 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 23.5% more average FPS across 6 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 192 MB vs 12 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7552 is the better fit. You are getting 340.7% better PassMark, backed by 48 cores and 96 threads. It also carries 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 makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 7552 is 2415.6% more expensive on MSRP at $4,025 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 23.5% average FPS lead across 6 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 470.9% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 14.3 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

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

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

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.

Core i5-10400F Benchmark Check

EPYC 7552 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7552
1080p
low	192 FPS	181 FPS
medium	152 FPS	158 FPS
high	123 FPS	123 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	100 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	152 FPS
medium	119 FPS	128 FPS
high	97 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	79 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	71 FPS
medium	70 FPS	63 FPS
high	55 FPS	48 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	39 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7552

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7552
1080p
low	326 FPS	236 FPS
medium	318 FPS	211 FPS
high	290 FPS	175 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	142 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	194 FPS
medium	292 FPS	177 FPS
high	267 FPS	152 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	119 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	120 FPS
medium	258 FPS	112 FPS
high	235 FPS	98 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	81 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7552

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7552
1080p
low	326 FPS	587 FPS
medium	326 FPS	492 FPS
high	326 FPS	437 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	365 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	492 FPS
medium	326 FPS	419 FPS
high	326 FPS	374 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	318 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	371 FPS
medium	326 FPS	298 FPS
high	289 FPS	265 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	215 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7552

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7552
1080p
low	326 FPS	890 FPS
medium	326 FPS	809 FPS
high	326 FPS	694 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	601 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	705 FPS
medium	326 FPS	615 FPS
high	326 FPS	525 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	446 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	499 FPS
medium	326 FPS	448 FPS
high	326 FPS	394 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	340 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7552

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 7552

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 199.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7552 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 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+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 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

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the EPYC 7552 debuted at $4025. On MSRP ($160 vs $4025), the Core i5-10400F is $3865 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 14.3 pts/$ for the EPYC 7552 — making the Core i5-10400F the 140.4% better value option.