Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 9174F

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9174F

16 Cores32 Thrd320 WWMax: 4.4 GHz2022

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

52,249

+301.0%

Ryzen 9 7940H

Ryzen 7 PRO 7745

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen 9 5950X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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 $34 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $194 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 320W, a 255W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9174F.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9174F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 52,249).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9174F, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 269.3 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $194 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9174F moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9174F

2022

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +67.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅Delivers 230.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 269.3 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($194 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
✅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

❌
21.3% HIGHER MSRP
$194 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
❌392.3% higher power demand at 320W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

EPYC 9174F

2022

Why buy it

✅Costs $34 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $194 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 320W, a 255W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9174F.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +67.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅Delivers 230.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 269.3 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($194 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
✅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 9174F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 52,249).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9174F, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 269.3 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $194 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9174F moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌
21.3% HIGHER MSRP
$194 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
❌392.3% higher power demand at 320W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9174F better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9174F 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 9174F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 67.5% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 256 MB vs 12 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9174F is the better fit. You are getting 301% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 2033.3% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 12 MB).

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

EPYC 9174F is the smarter buy today. EPYC 9174F is 21.3% more expensive on MSRP at $194 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 67.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 230.7% better value on MSRP (269.3 vs 81.4 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

EPYC 9174F 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, 3D V-Cache and a much larger 256 MB L3 cache instead of 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 9174F Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9174F
1080p
low	192 FPS	212 FPS
medium	152 FPS	174 FPS
high	123 FPS	149 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	108 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	189 FPS
medium	119 FPS	151 FPS
high	97 FPS	125 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	93 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	91 FPS
medium	70 FPS	78 FPS
high	55 FPS	61 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	50 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9174F

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9174F
1080p
low	326 FPS	713 FPS
medium	318 FPS	612 FPS
high	290 FPS	493 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	428 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	595 FPS
medium	292 FPS	522 FPS
high	267 FPS	434 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	354 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	361 FPS
medium	258 FPS	319 FPS
high	235 FPS	288 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	254 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9174F

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9174F
1080p
low	326 FPS	814 FPS
medium	326 FPS	686 FPS
high	326 FPS	637 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	557 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	614 FPS
medium	326 FPS	515 FPS
high	326 FPS	471 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	404 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	440 FPS
medium	326 FPS	352 FPS
high	289 FPS	311 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	246 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9174F

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9174F
1080p
low	326 FPS	1164 FPS
medium	326 FPS	1015 FPS
high	326 FPS	889 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	801 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	901 FPS
medium	326 FPS	788 FPS
high	326 FPS	666 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	583 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	640 FPS
medium	326 FPS	571 FPS
high	326 FPS	494 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	431 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9174F

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 9174F

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 9174F

The EPYC 9174F 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 4.1 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm, 6 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 320 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 52,249 points. Launch price was $3,850.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 9174F offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the EPYC 9174F has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.4 GHz on the EPYC 9174F — a 2.3% clock advantage for the EPYC 9174F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 4.1 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 9174F uses Genoa (2022−2023) (5 nm, 6 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 9174F's 52,249 — a 120.2% lead for the EPYC 9174F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9174F.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9174F
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	16 / 32+167%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	4.4 GHz+2%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	4.1 GHz+41%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	256 MB (total)+2033%
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	52,249+301%
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 9174F 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 9174F — the EPYC 9174F supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9174F 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 9174F). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9174F) — the EPYC 9174F 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 9174F).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9174F
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 9174F 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 9174F rivals Xeon Platinum 8468.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9174F
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 9174F debuted at $194. On MSRP ($160 vs $194), the Core i5-10400F is $34 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 269.3 pts/$ for the EPYC 9174F — making the EPYC 9174F the 107.1% better value option.