Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 9254

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9254

24 Cores48 Thrd200 WWMax: 4.15 GHz2022

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

64,344

+393.9%

Ryzen 7 7700X

Ryzen 7 8840HX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

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 $3,601 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $3,761 MSRP).
✅Delivers 376.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 17.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $3,761 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 200W, a 135W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9254.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9254 across 48 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 18,023).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9254, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9254 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9254

2022

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +38.4% higher average FPS across 48 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 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 17.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($3,761 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 9254

2022

Why buy it

✅Costs $3,601 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $3,761 MSRP).
✅Delivers 376.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 17.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $3,761 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 200W, a 135W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9254.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +38.4% higher average FPS across 48 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 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 9254 across 48 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 18,023).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9254, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9254 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 17.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($3,761 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 9254 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9254 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 9254 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 38.4% more average FPS across 48 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 9254 is the better fit. You are getting 211.7% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 24 cores and 48 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 9254 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9254 is 2250.6% more expensive on MSRP at $3,761 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 38.4% average FPS lead across 48 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 376.0% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 17.1 PassMark/$), 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 9254 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 128 MB L3 cache instead of 12 MB, more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 48 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 9254 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9254
1080p
low	192 FPS	171 FPS
medium	152 FPS	142 FPS
high	123 FPS	123 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	96 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	149 FPS
medium	119 FPS	120 FPS
high	97 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	70 FPS
medium	70 FPS	60 FPS
high	55 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	39 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9254

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9254
1080p
low	326 FPS	603 FPS
medium	318 FPS	529 FPS
high	290 FPS	429 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	375 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	507 FPS
medium	292 FPS	453 FPS
high	267 FPS	379 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	314 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	315 FPS
medium	258 FPS	285 FPS
high	235 FPS	257 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	230 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9254

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9254
1080p
low	326 FPS	716 FPS
medium	326 FPS	608 FPS
high	326 FPS	552 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	486 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	549 FPS
medium	326 FPS	465 FPS
high	326 FPS	415 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	359 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	400 FPS
medium	326 FPS	321 FPS
high	289 FPS	283 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	227 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9254

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9254
1080p
low	326 FPS	868 FPS
medium	326 FPS	793 FPS
high	326 FPS	684 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	605 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	695 FPS
medium	326 FPS	610 FPS
high	326 FPS	523 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	453 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	502 FPS
medium	326 FPS	451 FPS
high	326 FPS	397 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	340 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9254

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 9254

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 9254

The EPYC 9254 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 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 4.15 GHz. L3 cache: 128 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: 64,344 points. Launch price was $2,299.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 9254 offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 9254 has 18 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.15 GHz on the EPYC 9254 — a 3.6% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 9254 uses Genoa (2022−2023) (5 nm, 6 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 9254's 64,344 — a 132.6% lead for the EPYC 9254. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 2,233, a 42.3% lead for the EPYC 9254 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 18,023 (102.8% advantage for the EPYC 9254). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 9254.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9254
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	24 / 48+300%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+4%	4.15 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	2.9 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, 6 nm-64%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Genoa (2022−2023)
PassMark	13,029	64,344+394%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	2,233+54%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	18,023+212%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 9254 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 9254 — the EPYC 9254 supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9254 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 9254). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9254) — the EPYC 9254 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 9254).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9254
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 9254 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs AMD-V (EPYC 9254). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, EPYC 9254 targets Enterprise Server. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 9254 rivals Xeon Platinum 8468.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9254
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V
Target Use	Gaming	Enterprise Server

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the EPYC 9254 debuted at $3761. On MSRP ($160 vs $3761), the Core i5-10400F is $3601 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 17.1 pts/$ for the EPYC 9254 — making the Core i5-10400F the 130.6% better value option.