
Core i5-10400F

EPYC 8324PN
Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 8324PN 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 8324PN 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 8324PN: 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
- ✅Better for gaming: +10.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 130W, a 65W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 8324PN.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 128 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 8324PN, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads.
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while EPYC 8324PN mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 8324PN moves to SP6 and DDR5.
EPYC 8324PN
2023Why buy it
- ✅+966.7% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads.
- ✅Newer platform on SP6 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (8,375 vs 13,029).
- ❌100% higher power demand at 130W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i5-10400F better than EPYC 8324PN?
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 8324PN 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 8324PN
The EPYC 8324PN 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 2.05 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): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 8,375 points. Launch price was $2,125.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 8324PN offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 8324PN has 26 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3 GHz on the EPYC 8324PN — a 35.6% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.05 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 8324PN uses Siena (2023−2024) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 8324PN's 8,375 — a 43.5% lead for the Core i5-10400F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 8324PN.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 8324PN |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 32 / 64+433% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz+43% | 3 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz+41% | 2.05 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 128 MB (total)+967% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core)+25500% | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 14 nm | 5 nm-64% |
| Architecture | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | Siena (2023−2024) |
| PassMark | 13,029+56% | 8,375 |
| 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 8324PN uses SP6 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 8324PN |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | SP6 |
| 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 8324PN). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 8324PN |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | — |
| Target Use | Gaming | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.














