Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7601

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7601

32 Cores64 Thrd180 WWMax: 3.2 GHz2017

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

35,059

+169.1%

Ryzen 7 5800HS

Ryzen 7 3800XT

Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS

Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX

Ryzen 9 8940HX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

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

✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7601.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7601 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 35,059).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7601, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while EPYC 7601 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

EPYC 7601

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +19.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB).
✅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

❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

EPYC 7601

2017

Why buy it

✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7601.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +19.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB).
✅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 7601 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 35,059).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7601, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while EPYC 7601 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 7601 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7601 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 7601 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 19.6% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7601 is the better fit. You are getting 169.1% better PassMark, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB).

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

EPYC 7601 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 7601 is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 19.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 2017). 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 7601 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7601
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

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7601

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7601
1080p
low	326 FPS	207 FPS
medium	318 FPS	188 FPS
high	290 FPS	160 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	131 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	178 FPS
medium	292 FPS	163 FPS
high	267 FPS	141 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	111 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	112 FPS
medium	258 FPS	103 FPS
high	235 FPS	92 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	75 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7601

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7601
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

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7601

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7601
1080p
low	326 FPS	834 FPS
medium	326 FPS	759 FPS
high	326 FPS	652 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	565 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	667 FPS
medium	326 FPS	584 FPS
high	326 FPS	500 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	422 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	475 FPS
medium	326 FPS	427 FPS
high	326 FPS	375 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	322 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7601

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 7601

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 7601

The EPYC 7601 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 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 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: 35,059 points. Launch price was $4,200.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 7601 offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 7601 has 26 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.2 GHz on the EPYC 7601 — a 29.3% 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 7601 uses Naples (2017−2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 7601's 35,059 — a 91.6% lead for the EPYC 7601. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 7601.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7601
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	32 / 64+433%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+34%	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+32%	2.2 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	35,059+169%
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 7601 uses TR4 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus 2666 on the EPYC 7601 — the EPYC 7601 supports 199.4% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7601 supports up to 2048 of RAM compared to 128 GB — 176.5% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 8 (EPYC 7601). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 7601) — the EPYC 7601 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 7601).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7601
Socket	LGA1200	TR4
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	2666+66550%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+6553500%	2048
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	128+700%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs AMD-V, SVM (EPYC 7601). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 7601 rivals Xeon Platinum 8180.