Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 9124

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9124

16 Cores32 Thrd200 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2022

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

43,638

+234.9%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

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 $923 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,083 MSRP).
✅Delivers 102.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 40.3 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,083 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 200W, a 135W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9124.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9124 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 18,000).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9124, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9124 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9124

2022

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +25.8% higher average FPS across 50 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 40.3 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,083 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌207.7% higher power demand at 200W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

EPYC 9124

2022

Why buy it

✅Costs $923 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,083 MSRP).
✅Delivers 102.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 40.3 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,083 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 200W, a 135W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9124.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +25.8% higher average FPS across 50 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 9124 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 18,000).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9124, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9124 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 40.3 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,083 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌207.7% higher power demand at 200W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9124 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9124 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 9124 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 25.8% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9124 is the better fit. You are getting 211.3% better Geekbench multi-core, 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 9124 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9124 is 576.9% more expensive on MSRP at $1,083 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 25.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 102.1% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 40.3 PassMark/$), 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 9124 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2022 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 9124 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9124
1080p
low	192 FPS	165 FPS
medium	152 FPS	135 FPS
high	123 FPS	116 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	91 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	145 FPS
medium	119 FPS	116 FPS
high	97 FPS	94 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	75 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	69 FPS
medium	70 FPS	58 FPS
high	55 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	38 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9124

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9124
1080p
low	326 FPS	499 FPS
medium	318 FPS	439 FPS
high	290 FPS	354 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	292 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	421 FPS
medium	292 FPS	377 FPS
high	267 FPS	314 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	249 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	260 FPS
medium	258 FPS	237 FPS
high	235 FPS	210 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	175 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9124

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9124
1080p
low	326 FPS	642 FPS
medium	326 FPS	524 FPS
high	326 FPS	488 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	425 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	499 FPS
medium	326 FPS	406 FPS
high	326 FPS	372 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	322 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	371 FPS
medium	326 FPS	288 FPS
high	289 FPS	258 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	207 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9124

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9124
1080p
low	326 FPS	851 FPS
medium	326 FPS	780 FPS
high	326 FPS	675 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	595 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	681 FPS
medium	326 FPS	601 FPS
high	326 FPS	517 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	442 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	491 FPS
medium	326 FPS	442 FPS
high	326 FPS	388 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	334 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9124

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 9124

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 9124

The EPYC 9124 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 November 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm, 6 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 43,638 points. Launch price was $1,083.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 9124 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the EPYC 9124 has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9124 — a 15% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 9124 uses Genoa (2022−2023) (5 nm, 6 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 9124's 43,638 — a 108% lead for the EPYC 9124. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,770, a 19.6% lead for the EPYC 9124 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 18,000 (102.7% advantage for the EPYC 9124). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 9124.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9124
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	16 / 32+167%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+16%	3.7 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3 GHz+3%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	64 MB (total)+433%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	1 MB (per core)+300%
Process	14 nm	5 nm, 6 nm-64%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Genoa (2022−2023)
PassMark	13,029	43,638+235%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	1,770+22%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	18,000+211%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 9124 uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR5-4800 on the EPYC 9124 — the EPYC 9124 supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9124 supports up to 6144 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 191.8% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 12 (EPYC 9124). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9124) — the EPYC 9124 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 9124).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9124
Socket	LGA1200	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR5-4800+25%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	6144 GB+4700%
RAM Channels	2	12+500%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	128+700%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the EPYC 9124 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs AMD-V (EPYC 9124). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, EPYC 9124 targets Server. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 9124 rivals Xeon Gold 6426Y.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9124
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V
Target Use	Gaming	Server

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the EPYC 9124 debuted at $1083. On MSRP ($160 vs $1083), the Core i5-10400F is $923 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 40.3 pts/$ for the EPYC 9124 — making the Core i5-10400F the 67.6% better value option.