Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 9255

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9255

24 Cores48 Thrd200 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

75,809

+481.8%

Ryzen 7 8840HX

Ryzen 9 7900X3D

Ryzen 9 7945HX3D

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

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 $2,335 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $2,495 MSRP).
✅Delivers 168.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 30.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $2,495 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 200W, a 135W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9255.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9255 across 24 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 75,809).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9255, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9255 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9255

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +54.6% higher average FPS across 24 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 30.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($2,495 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 9255

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $2,335 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $2,495 MSRP).
✅Delivers 168.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 30.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $2,495 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 200W, a 135W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9255.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +54.6% higher average FPS across 24 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 9255 across 24 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 75,809).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9255, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9255 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 30.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($2,495 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 9255 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9255 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 9255 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 54.6% more average FPS across 24 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 9255 is the better fit. You are getting 481.8% better PassMark, 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 9255 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9255 is 1459.4% more expensive on MSRP at $2,495 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 54.6% average FPS lead across 24 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 168.0% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 30.4 PassMark/$), 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 9255 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, 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 9255 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9255
1080p
low	192 FPS	303 FPS
medium	152 FPS	280 FPS
high	123 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	195 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	268 FPS
medium	119 FPS	223 FPS
high	97 FPS	172 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	152 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	186 FPS
medium	70 FPS	154 FPS
high	55 FPS	117 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	105 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9255

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9255
1080p
low	326 FPS	717 FPS
medium	318 FPS	614 FPS
high	290 FPS	485 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	421 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	573 FPS
medium	292 FPS	507 FPS
high	267 FPS	419 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	341 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	335 FPS
medium	258 FPS	298 FPS
high	235 FPS	270 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	239 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9255

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9255
1080p
low	326 FPS	850 FPS
medium	326 FPS	691 FPS
high	326 FPS	625 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	530 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	677 FPS
medium	326 FPS	548 FPS
high	326 FPS	484 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	408 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	483 FPS
medium	326 FPS	399 FPS
high	289 FPS	355 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	293 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9255

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9255
1080p
low	326 FPS	1083 FPS
medium	326 FPS	982 FPS
high	326 FPS	862 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	777 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	859 FPS
medium	326 FPS	761 FPS
high	326 FPS	668 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	582 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	627 FPS
medium	326 FPS	562 FPS
high	326 FPS	500 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	434 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9255

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 9255

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 9255

The EPYC 9255 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 3.25 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 75,809 points. Launch price was $2,495.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 9255 offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 9255 has 18 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9255 — a 11% clock advantage for the EPYC 9255 (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.25 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 9255 uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 9255's 75,809 — a 141.3% lead for the EPYC 9255. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 9255.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9255
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	24 / 48+300%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	4.8 GHz+12%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.25 GHz+12%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	128 MB (total)+967%
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	75,809+482%
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 9255 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 9255 — the EPYC 9255 supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9255 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 9255). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9255) — the EPYC 9255 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 9255).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9255
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 9255 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, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9255). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 9255 rivals Xeon Platinum 8480+.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9255
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the EPYC 9255 debuted at $2495. On MSRP ($160 vs $2495), the Core i5-10400F is $2335 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 30.4 pts/$ for the EPYC 9255 — making the Core i5-10400F the 91.3% better value option.