
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

EPYC 7573X
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 $5,430 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $5,590 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 555.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 12.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $5,590 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 280W, a 215W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7573X.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7573X across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 69,432).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7573X, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
EPYC 7573X
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +61.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($5,590 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌330.8% higher power demand at 280W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020EPYC 7573X
2022Why buy it
- ✅Costs $5,430 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $5,590 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 555.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 12.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $5,590 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 280W, a 215W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7573X.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +61.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7573X across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 69,432).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7573X, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($5,590 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌330.8% higher power demand at 280W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 7573X 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 7573X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 205 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 167 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 136 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 105 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 163 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 127 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 100 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 79 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 74 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 61 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 48 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 40 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7573X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 463 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 407 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 329 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 259 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 381 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 343 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 286 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 218 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 234 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 215 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 180 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 144 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7573X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 865 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 717 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 668 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 590 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 622 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 514 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 472 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 412 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 444 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 345 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 308 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 249 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7573X |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 767 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 668 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 572 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 492 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 550 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 490 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 430 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 372 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 7573X

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 7573X
EPYC 7573X
The EPYC 7573X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2022-03-01. It is based on the Milan-X (2022) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 768 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 280 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 69,432 points. Launch price was $5,590.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 7573X offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 7573X has 26 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.6 GHz on the EPYC 7573X — a 17.7% 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 7573X uses Milan-X (2022) (7 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 7573X's 69,432 — a 136.8% lead for the EPYC 7573X. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 768 MB (total) on the EPYC 7573X.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7573X |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 32 / 64+433% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz+19% | 3.6 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz+4% | 2.8 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 768 MB (total)+6300% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 512K (per core)+100% |
| Process | 14 nm | 7 nm-50% |
| Architecture | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | Milan-X (2022) |
| PassMark | 13,029 | 69,432+433% |
| 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 7573X 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 7573X — the EPYC 7573X supports 199.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7573X 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 7573X). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 7573X) — the EPYC 7573X 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 7573X).
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7573X |
|---|---|---|
| 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 7573X rivals Xeon Platinum 8280.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7573X |
|---|---|---|
| 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 7573X debuted at $5590. On MSRP ($160 vs $5590), the Core i5-10400F is $5430 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 12.4 pts/$ for the EPYC 7573X — making the Core i5-10400F the 147.1% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7573X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $160-97% | $5590 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.4+556% | 12.4 |
| Release Date | 2020 | 2022 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












