Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 8324P

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 8324P

32 Cores64 Thrd180 WWMax: 3 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

57,127

+338.5%

Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX

Ryzen 7 9700X

Ryzen 9 5900XT

Ryzen 9 7900X3D

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

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 $1,735 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,895 MSRP).
✅Delivers 170.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 30.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,895 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 8324P.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 8324P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 57,127).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 8324P, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 96 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 8324P moves to SP6 and DDR5.

EPYC 8324P

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +26.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 96 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅Newer platform on SP6 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
✅500% more PCIe lanes (96 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 30.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,895 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 8324P

2023

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,735 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,895 MSRP).
✅Delivers 170.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 30.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,895 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 8324P.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +26.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 96 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅Newer platform on SP6 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
✅500% more PCIe lanes (96 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 8324P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 57,127).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 8324P, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 96 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 8324P moves to SP6 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 30.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,895 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 8324P better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 8324P 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 8324P is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 26.0% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 128 MB vs 12 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 8324P is the better fit. You are getting 338.5% better PassMark, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 966.7% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 12 MB).

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

EPYC 8324P is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 8324P is 1084.4% more expensive on MSRP at $1,895 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 26.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 170.1% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 30.1 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

EPYC 8324P is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2020), a healthier platform with SP6 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200, 3D V-Cache and a much larger 128 MB L3 cache instead of 12 MB, more multi-core headroom with 32 cores / 64 threads instead of 6/12, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

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 8324P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 8324P
1080p
low	192 FPS	159 FPS
medium	152 FPS	131 FPS
high	123 FPS	110 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	87 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	142 FPS
medium	119 FPS	114 FPS
high	97 FPS	90 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	72 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	68 FPS
medium	70 FPS	58 FPS
high	55 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	37 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 8324P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 8324P
1080p
low	326 FPS	419 FPS
medium	318 FPS	369 FPS
high	290 FPS	300 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	236 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	344 FPS
medium	292 FPS	311 FPS
high	267 FPS	260 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	199 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	212 FPS
medium	258 FPS	195 FPS
high	235 FPS	164 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	132 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 8324P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 8324P
1080p
low	326 FPS	860 FPS
medium	326 FPS	786 FPS
high	326 FPS	760 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	682 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	664 FPS
medium	326 FPS	587 FPS
high	326 FPS	559 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	498 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	436 FPS
medium	326 FPS	345 FPS
high	289 FPS	308 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	251 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 8324P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 8324P
1080p
low	326 FPS	1022 FPS
medium	326 FPS	913 FPS
high	326 FPS	771 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	650 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	832 FPS
medium	326 FPS	712 FPS
high	326 FPS	598 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	490 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	599 FPS
medium	326 FPS	523 FPS
high	326 FPS	451 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	375 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 8324P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 8324P

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 8324P

The EPYC 8324P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 18 September 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Siena (2023−2024) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.65 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: SP6. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 57,127 points. Launch price was $1,895.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 8324P offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 8324P has 26 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3 GHz on the EPYC 8324P — a 35.6% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.65 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 8324P uses Siena (2023−2024) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 8324P's 57,127 — a 125.7% lead for the EPYC 8324P. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 8324P.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 8324P
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	32 / 64+433%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+43%	3 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+9%	2.65 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	128 MB (total)+967%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	1 MB (per core)+300%
Process	14 nm	5 nm-64%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Siena (2023−2024)
PassMark	13,029	57,127+338%
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 8324P uses SP6 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus 4800 on the EPYC 8324P — the EPYC 8324P supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 8324P supports up to 1152 of RAM compared to 128 GB — 160% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 6 (EPYC 8324P). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 96 (EPYC 8324P) — the EPYC 8324P offers 80 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and SP6 (EPYC 8324P).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 8324P
Socket	LGA1200	SP6
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	4800+119900%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+11650744%	1152
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	96+500%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the EPYC 8324P supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. 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 8324P rivals Xeon Platinum 8452Y.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 8324P
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
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 8324P debuted at $1895. On MSRP ($160 vs $1895), the Core i5-10400F is $1735 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 30.1 pts/$ for the EPYC 8324P — making the Core i5-10400F the 91.9% better value option.