Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 9384X

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Core family

·······

Buy on Amazon

EPYC 9384X

32 Cores64 Thrd320 WWMax: 3.9 GHz2023

EPYC family

·······

Buy on Amazon

Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 9384X Performance Spectrum

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

72,121

+453.5%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen 9 7900

Ryzen 9 9955HX

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

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.

Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 9384X FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 9384X: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Why buy it

✅Costs $5,369 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $5,529 MSRP).
✅Delivers 524.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 13.0 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $5,529 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 320W, a 255W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9384X.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9384X across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 72,121).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9384X, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9384X moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9384X

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +22.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 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 13.0 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($5,529 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 9384X better than Core i5-10400F?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. EPYC 9384X makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-10400F is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, EPYC 9384X is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 22.9% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests. It also has a clear cache advantage at 768 MB versus 12 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9384X is the stronger fit. You are getting 453.5% better PassMark, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 6300% larger total L3 cache (768 MB vs 12 MB).

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

EPYC 9384X is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. EPYC 9384X comes in 3355.6% more expensive on MSRP at $5,529 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it still gives you a 22.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 524.3% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 13.0 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

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

EPYC 9384X makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2020), a healthier platform with SP5 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200, 3D V-Cache and a much larger 768 MB L3 cache instead of 12 MB, more multi-core headroom with 32 cores / 64 threads instead of 6/12, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 9384X Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

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 9384X

The EPYC 9384X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 13 June 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Genoa-X (2023) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 768 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 320 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 72,121 points. Launch price was $5,529.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 9384X offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 9384X has 26 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.9 GHz on the EPYC 9384X — a 9.8% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.1 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 9384X uses Genoa-X (2023) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 9384X's 72,121 — a 138.8% lead for the EPYC 9384X. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 768 MB (total) on the EPYC 9384X.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9384X
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	32 / 64+433%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+10%	3.9 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.1 GHz+7%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	768 MB (total)+6300%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+25500%	1 MB (per core)
Process	14 nm	5 nm-64%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Genoa-X (2023)
PassMark	13,029	72,121+454%
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 9384X 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 9384X — the EPYC 9384X supports 80% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9384X supports up to 6144 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 4700% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 12 (EPYC 9384X). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9384X) — the EPYC 9384X 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 9384X).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9384X
Socket	LGA1200	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	4800+80%
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 9384X 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 9384X). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 9384X rivals Xeon Platinum 8468.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9384X
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

At launch, the Core i5-10400F was priced at $160, while the EPYC 9384X came in at $5529. On launch pricing ($160 vs $5529), Core i5-10400F was $5369 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 13.0 pts/$ for the EPYC 9384X — making the Core i5-10400F the 144.8% better value option.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9384X
MSRP	$160-97%	$5529
Performance per Dollar	81.4+526%	13.0
Release Date	2020	2023

Search Core i5-10400F on Amazon

Search EPYC 9384X on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.