Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7F32

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7F32

8 Cores16 Thrd180 WWMax: 3.9 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

23,253

+78.5%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen 9 7945HX3D

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

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 $1,940 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $2,100 MSRP).
✅Delivers 635.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 11.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $2,100 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7F32.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7F32 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 23,253).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7F32, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.

EPYC 7F32

2020

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +39.9% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 11.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($2,100 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

EPYC 7F32

2020

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,940 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $2,100 MSRP).
✅Delivers 635.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 11.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $2,100 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7F32.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +39.9% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7F32 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 23,253).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7F32, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 11.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($2,100 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 7F32 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7F32 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 7F32 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 39.9% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7F32 is the better fit. You are getting 78.5% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).

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

EPYC 7F32 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 7F32 is 1212.5% more expensive on MSRP at $2,100 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 39.9% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 635.4% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 11.1 PassMark/$), 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 safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more overall headroom and a better platform outlook.

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 7F32 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7F32
1080p
low	192 FPS	193 FPS
medium	152 FPS	158 FPS
high	123 FPS	136 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	100 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	167 FPS
medium	119 FPS	135 FPS
high	97 FPS	111 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	80 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	69 FPS
medium	70 FPS	58 FPS
high	55 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	37 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7F32

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7F32
1080p
low	326 FPS	433 FPS
medium	318 FPS	379 FPS
high	290 FPS	309 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	259 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	367 FPS
medium	292 FPS	332 FPS
high	267 FPS	277 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	229 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	236 FPS
medium	258 FPS	215 FPS
high	235 FPS	191 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	159 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7F32

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7F32
1080p
low	326 FPS	581 FPS
medium	326 FPS	580 FPS
high	326 FPS	541 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	466 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	535 FPS
medium	326 FPS	437 FPS
high	326 FPS	401 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	342 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	383 FPS
medium	326 FPS	300 FPS
high	289 FPS	268 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	213 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7F32

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7F32
1080p
low	326 FPS	581 FPS
medium	326 FPS	581 FPS
high	326 FPS	581 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	581 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	581 FPS
medium	326 FPS	581 FPS
high	326 FPS	564 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	479 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	519 FPS
medium	326 FPS	468 FPS
high	326 FPS	415 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	357 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7F32

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 7F32

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 7F32

The EPYC 7F32 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 14 April 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 23,253 points. Launch price was $2,100.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 7F32 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the EPYC 7F32 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.9 GHz on the EPYC 7F32 — a 9.8% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.7 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 7F32 uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 7F32's 23,253 — a 56.4% lead for the EPYC 7F32. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 32 MB (total) on the EPYC 7F32.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7F32
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 16+33%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+10%	3.9 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.7 GHz+28%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	32 MB (total)+167%
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	23,253+78%
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 7F32 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7F32
Socket	LGA1200	SP3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	—
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) / not specified (EPYC 7F32). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7F32
Integrated GPU	No	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	—
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the EPYC 7F32 debuted at $2100. On MSRP ($160 vs $2100), the Core i5-10400F is $1940 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 11.1 pts/$ for the EPYC 7F32 — making the Core i5-10400F the 152.1% better value option.