Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 9275F

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9275F

24 Cores48 Thrd320 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

84,620

+549.5%

Ryzen 9 PRO 7945

Ryzen 9 9900X3D

Ryzen 9 9950X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

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 $3,279 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).
✅Delivers 230.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 320W, a 255W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9275F.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9275F across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 84,620).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9275F, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9275F moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9275F

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +79.2% higher average FPS across 7 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 24.6 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($3,439 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌392.3% higher power demand at 320W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

EPYC 9275F

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $3,279 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).
✅Delivers 230.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $3,439 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 320W, a 255W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9275F.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +79.2% higher average FPS across 7 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 9275F across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 84,620).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9275F, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9275F moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 24.6 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($3,439 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌392.3% higher power demand at 320W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9275F better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9275F 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 9275F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 79.2% more average FPS across 7 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 9275F is the better fit. You are getting 549.5% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 48 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 9275F is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9275F is 2049.4% more expensive on MSRP at $3,439 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 79.2% average FPS lead across 7 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 230.9% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 24.6 PassMark/$), 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 9275F 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 256 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 9275F Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9275F
1080p
low	192 FPS	315 FPS
medium	152 FPS	290 FPS
high	123 FPS	241 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	204 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	278 FPS
medium	119 FPS	230 FPS
high	97 FPS	178 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	159 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	191 FPS
medium	70 FPS	157 FPS
high	55 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	107 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9275F

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9275F
1080p
low	326 FPS	725 FPS
medium	318 FPS	618 FPS
high	290 FPS	485 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	421 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	579 FPS
medium	292 FPS	510 FPS
high	267 FPS	419 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	341 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	338 FPS
medium	258 FPS	300 FPS
high	235 FPS	270 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	239 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9275F

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9275F
1080p
low	326 FPS	923 FPS
medium	326 FPS	748 FPS
high	326 FPS	675 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	572 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	724 FPS
medium	326 FPS	584 FPS
high	326 FPS	515 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	433 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	511 FPS
medium	326 FPS	421 FPS
high	289 FPS	374 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	309 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9275F

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9275F
1080p
low	326 FPS	1141 FPS
medium	326 FPS	1015 FPS
high	326 FPS	902 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	813 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	891 FPS
medium	326 FPS	785 FPS
high	326 FPS	689 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	600 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	650 FPS
medium	326 FPS	580 FPS
high	326 FPS	515 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9275F

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 9275F

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 9275F

The EPYC 9275F 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 4.1 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 320 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 84,620 points. Launch price was $3,439.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 9275F offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 9275F has 18 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9275F — a 11% clock advantage for the EPYC 9275F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 4.1 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 9275F uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 9275F's 84,620 — a 146.6% lead for the EPYC 9275F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9275F.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9275F
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	24 / 48+300%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	4.8 GHz+12%
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	4 nm-71%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Turin (2024)
PassMark	13,029	84,620+549%
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 9275F uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus 6000 on the EPYC 9275F — the EPYC 9275F supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9275F 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 9275F). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9275F) — the EPYC 9275F 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 9275F).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9275F
Socket	LGA1200	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	6000+149900%
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 9275F 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 9275F). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 9275F rivals Xeon 6980P.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9275F
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 9275F debuted at $3439. On MSRP ($160 vs $3439), the Core i5-10400F is $3279 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 24.6 pts/$ for the EPYC 9275F — making the Core i5-10400F the 107.2% better value option.