Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7F72

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7F72

24 Cores48 Thrd240 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

52,840

+305.6%

Ryzen 9 8945HS

Ryzen AI 9 HX 370

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen 9 PRO 7945

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

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 $1,971 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $2,131 MSRP).
✅Delivers 228.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 24.8 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $2,131 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 240W, a 175W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7F72.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7F72 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 52,840).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7F72, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7F72

2020

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +31.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 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 24.8 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($2,131 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌269.2% higher power demand at 240W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

EPYC 7F72

2020

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,971 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $2,131 MSRP).
✅Delivers 228.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 24.8 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $2,131 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 240W, a 175W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7F72.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +31.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 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 7F72 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 52,840).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7F72, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 24.8 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($2,131 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌269.2% higher power demand at 240W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 7F72 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7F72 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 7F72 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 31.6% more average FPS across 50 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 7F72 is the better fit. You are getting 305.6% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 48 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 7F72 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 7F72 is 1231.9% more expensive on MSRP at $2,131 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 31.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 228.4% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 24.8 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

EPYC 7F72 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 3D V-Cache and a much larger 192 MB L3 cache instead of 12 MB and more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 48 threads instead of 6/12. That extra cache should hold up really well in CPU-limited games and high-refresh builds.

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 7F72 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7F72
1080p
low	192 FPS	176 FPS
medium	152 FPS	148 FPS
high	123 FPS	130 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	102 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	151 FPS
medium	119 FPS	122 FPS
high	97 FPS	98 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	71 FPS
medium	70 FPS	61 FPS
high	55 FPS	48 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	39 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7F72

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7F72
1080p
low	326 FPS	510 FPS
medium	318 FPS	449 FPS
high	290 FPS	341 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	273 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	418 FPS
medium	292 FPS	377 FPS
high	267 FPS	297 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	230 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	260 FPS
medium	258 FPS	239 FPS
high	235 FPS	200 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	163 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7F72

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7F72
1080p
low	326 FPS	605 FPS
medium	326 FPS	495 FPS
high	326 FPS	452 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	388 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	520 FPS
medium	326 FPS	431 FPS
high	326 FPS	388 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	334 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	388 FPS
medium	326 FPS	302 FPS
high	289 FPS	265 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	212 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7F72

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7F72
1080p
low	326 FPS	877 FPS
medium	326 FPS	808 FPS
high	326 FPS	695 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	613 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	708 FPS
medium	326 FPS	626 FPS
high	326 FPS	535 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	458 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	508 FPS
medium	326 FPS	460 FPS
high	326 FPS	404 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	349 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7F72

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 7F72

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 7F72

The EPYC 7F72 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 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 192 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 240 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 52,840 points. Launch price was $2,450.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 7F72 offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 7F72 has 18 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 7F72 — a 15% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 7F72 uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 7F72's 52,840 — a 120.9% lead for the EPYC 7F72. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 192 MB (total) on the EPYC 7F72.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7F72
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	24 / 48+300%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+16%	3.7 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.2 GHz+10%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	192 MB (total)+1500%
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	52,840+306%
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 7F72 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 7F72 — the EPYC 7F72 supports 199.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7F72 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 7F72). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 7F72) — the EPYC 7F72 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 7F72).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7F72
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 7F72 rivals Xeon Platinum 8260.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7F72
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 7F72 debuted at $2131. On MSRP ($160 vs $2131), the Core i5-10400F is $1971 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 24.8 pts/$ for the EPYC 7F72 — making the Core i5-10400F the 106.6% better value option.