Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 9115

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9115

16 Cores32 Thrd125 WWMax: 4.1 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

48,343

+271.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

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 $566 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $726 MSRP).
✅Delivers 22.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 66.6 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $726 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9115.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9115 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 48,343).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9115, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9115 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9115

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +45.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 66.6 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($726 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

EPYC 9115

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $566 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $726 MSRP).
✅Delivers 22.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 66.6 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $726 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9115.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +45.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9115 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 48,343).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9115, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9115 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 66.6 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($726 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9115 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9115 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 9115 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 45.3% 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 9115 is the better fit. You are getting 271% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB).

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

EPYC 9115 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9115 is 353.8% more expensive on MSRP at $726 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 45.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 22.3% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 66.6 PassMark/$), 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 9115 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2020), a healthier platform with SP5 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200, 433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB), more multi-core headroom with 16 cores / 32 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 9115 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9115
1080p
low	192 FPS	164 FPS
medium	152 FPS	135 FPS
high	123 FPS	114 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	90 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	144 FPS
medium	119 FPS	116 FPS
high	97 FPS	93 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	74 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	68 FPS
medium	70 FPS	58 FPS
high	55 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	37 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9115

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9115
1080p
low	326 FPS	490 FPS
medium	318 FPS	436 FPS
high	290 FPS	338 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	291 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	422 FPS
medium	292 FPS	380 FPS
high	267 FPS	305 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	247 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	264 FPS
medium	258 FPS	240 FPS
high	235 FPS	208 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	182 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9115

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9115
1080p
low	326 FPS	707 FPS
medium	326 FPS	592 FPS
high	326 FPS	538 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	478 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	545 FPS
medium	326 FPS	454 FPS
high	326 FPS	407 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	355 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	397 FPS
medium	326 FPS	318 FPS
high	289 FPS	281 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	228 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9115

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9115
1080p
low	326 FPS	860 FPS
medium	326 FPS	785 FPS
high	326 FPS	679 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	601 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	680 FPS
medium	326 FPS	601 FPS
high	326 FPS	516 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	447 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	495 FPS
medium	326 FPS	445 FPS
high	326 FPS	391 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	335 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9115

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 9115

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 9115

The EPYC 9115 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.1 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 48,343 points. Launch price was $726.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 9115 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the EPYC 9115 has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.1 GHz on the EPYC 9115 — a 4.8% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 9115 uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 9115's 48,343 — a 115.1% lead for the EPYC 9115. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 9115.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9115
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	16 / 32+167%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+5%	4.1 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+12%	2.6 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	64 MB (total)+433%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	1 MB (per core)+300%
Process	14 nm	4 nm-71%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Turin (2024)
PassMark	13,029	48,343+271%
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 9115 uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus 4800 on the EPYC 9115 — the EPYC 9115 supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9115 supports up to 6144 of RAM compared to 128 GB — 191.8% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 12 (EPYC 9115). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9115) — the EPYC 9115 offers 112 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and SP5 (EPYC 9115).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9115
Socket	LGA1200	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	4800+119900%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+2184433%	6144
RAM Channels	2	12+500%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	128+700%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the EPYC 9115 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V (EPYC 9115). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 9115 rivals Xeon Platinum 8468X.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9115
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the EPYC 9115 debuted at $726. On MSRP ($160 vs $726), the Core i5-10400F is $566 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 66.6 pts/$ for the EPYC 9115 — making the Core i5-10400F the 20.1% better value option.