Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:
EPYC 9454
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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
2020Why buy it
- ✅Costs $5,065 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $5,225 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 383.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 16.8 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $5,225 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 290W, a 225W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9454.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9454 across 31 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 87,961).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9454, which brings 48 cores / 96 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9454 moves to SP5 and DDR5.
EPYC 9454
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +29.1% higher average FPS across 31 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 48 cores / 96 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.8 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($5,225 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌346.2% higher power demand at 290W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020EPYC 9454
2022Why buy it
- ✅Costs $5,065 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $5,225 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 383.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 16.8 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $5,225 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 290W, a 225W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9454.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +29.1% higher average FPS across 31 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 48 cores / 96 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅Newer platform on SP5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9454 across 31 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 87,961).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9454, which brings 48 cores / 96 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9454 moves to SP5 and DDR5.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.8 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($5,225 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌346.2% higher power demand at 290W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 9454 better than Core i5-10400F?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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.
Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 9454 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 171 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 142 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 122 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 |
Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 9454 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 533 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 465 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 373 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 303 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 438 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 392 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 323 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 255 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 270 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 246 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 216 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 179 FPS |
League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 9454 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 672 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 561 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 522 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 455 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 511 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 426 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 390 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 337 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 377 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 294 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 263 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 211 FPS |
Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 9454 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 902 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 822 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 708 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 625 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 724 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 631 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 540 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 462 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 519 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 464 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 407 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 350 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 9454
Core i5-10400F
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 9454
EPYC 9454
The EPYC 9454 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 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 2.75 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 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): 290 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 87,961 points. Launch price was $5,225.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 9454 offers 48 cores / 96 threads — the EPYC 9454 has 42 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.8 GHz on the EPYC 9454 — a 12.3% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.75 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 9454 uses Genoa (2022−2023) (5 nm, 6 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 9454's 87,961 — a 148.4% lead for the EPYC 9454. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9454.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 9454 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 48 / 96+700% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz+13% | 3.8 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz+5% | 2.75 GHz |
| 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 | 87,961+575% |
| 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 9454 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 9454 — the EPYC 9454 supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i5-10400F supports up to 128 GB of RAM compared to 6 TB — 182.1% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 12 (EPYC 9454). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9454) — the EPYC 9454 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 9454).
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 9454 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 6 TB+4700% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 12+500% |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 128+700% |
Advanced Features
Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs AMD-V, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9454). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, EPYC 9454 targets Data Center. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 9454 rivals Xeon Platinum 8468.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 9454 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | AMD-V, SEV-SNP |
| Target Use | Gaming | Data Center |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the EPYC 9454 debuted at $5225. On MSRP ($160 vs $5225), the Core i5-10400F is $5065 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 16.8 pts/$ for the EPYC 9454 — making the Core i5-10400F the 131.5% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | EPYC 9454 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $160-97% | $5225 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.4+385% | 16.8 |
| Release Date | 2020 | 2022 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Core i5-10400F and EPYC 9454
