Core i5-10400F
EPYC 7702P
Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7702P Performance Spectrum
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 7702P 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.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Among Us
Apex Legends
ARC Raiders
Baldur's Gate 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7702P: 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
2020Why buy it
- ✅Costs $4,265 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $4,425 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 465.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 14.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $4,425 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 200W, a 135W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7702P.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7702P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 63,692).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7702P, which brings 64 cores / 128 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
EPYC 7702P
2019Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +23.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 64 cores / 128 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($4,425 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 7702P 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?
Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7702P 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 7702P
The EPYC 7702P 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 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 3.35 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: TR4. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 63,692 points. Launch price was $4,425.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 7702P offers 64 cores / 128 threads — the EPYC 7702P has 58 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.35 GHz on the EPYC 7702P — a 24.8% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 7702P uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 7702P's 63,692 — a 132.1% lead for the EPYC 7702P. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 7702P.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7702P |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 64 / 128+967% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz+28% | 3.35 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz+45% | 2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 256 MB (total)+2033% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 512K (per core)+100% |
| Process | 14 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm-50% |
| Architecture | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| PassMark | 13,029 | 63,692+389% |
| 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 7702P uses TR4 (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 7702P — the EPYC 7702P supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7702P 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 7702P). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 7702P) — the EPYC 7702P 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 7702P).
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7702P |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | TR4 |
| 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 7702P rivals Xeon Platinum 8380.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7702P |
|---|---|---|
| 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 7702P came in at $4425. On launch pricing ($160 vs $4425), Core i5-10400F was $4265 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 14.4 pts/$ for the EPYC 7702P — making the Core i5-10400F the 139.9% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 7702P |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $160-96% | $4425 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.4+465% | 14.4 |
| Release Date | 2020 | 2019 |
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.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Core i5-10400F and EPYC 7702P
