Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 9475F

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9475F

48 Cores96 Thrd400 WWMax: 4.8 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

122,476

+840.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

Ryzen Threadripper 9980X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX

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 $7,432 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
✅Delivers 404.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 400W, a 335W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9475F.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9475F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 45,000).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9475F, which brings 48 cores / 96 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9475F moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9475F

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +99.2% higher average FPS across 4 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 16.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌515.4% higher power demand at 400W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

EPYC 9475F

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $7,432 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
✅Delivers 404.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 16.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $7,592 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 400W, a 335W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9475F.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +99.2% higher average FPS across 4 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 9475F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 45,000).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9475F, which brings 48 cores / 96 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9475F moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($7,592 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌515.4% higher power demand at 400W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9475F better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9475F 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 9475F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 99.2% more average FPS across 4 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 9475F is the better fit. You are getting 678.1% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 48 cores and 96 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 9475F is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9475F is 4645.0% more expensive on MSRP at $7,592 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 99.2% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 404.8% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 16.1 PassMark/$), 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 9475F 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 48 cores / 96 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 9475F Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9475F
1080p
low	192 FPS	315 FPS
medium	152 FPS	289 FPS
high	123 FPS	240 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	203 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	278 FPS
medium	119 FPS	230 FPS
high	97 FPS	178 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	157 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 9475F

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9475F
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 9475F

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9475F
1080p
low	326 FPS	906 FPS
medium	326 FPS	738 FPS
high	326 FPS	668 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	566 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	702 FPS
medium	326 FPS	570 FPS
high	326 FPS	503 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	424 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	496 FPS
medium	326 FPS	411 FPS
high	289 FPS	365 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	302 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9475F

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9475F
1080p
low	326 FPS	1139 FPS
medium	326 FPS	1015 FPS
high	326 FPS	901 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	812 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	888 FPS
medium	326 FPS	782 FPS
high	326 FPS	687 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	598 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	648 FPS
medium	326 FPS	578 FPS
high	326 FPS	513 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9475F

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 9475F

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 9475F

The EPYC 9475F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 3.65 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): 400 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 122,476 points. Launch price was $7,592.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 9475F offers 48 cores / 96 threads — the EPYC 9475F has 42 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.8 GHz on the EPYC 9475F — a 11% clock advantage for the EPYC 9475F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.65 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 9475F uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 9475F's 122,476 — a 161.5% lead for the EPYC 9475F. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,960, a 29.6% lead for the EPYC 9475F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 45,000 (154.4% advantage for the EPYC 9475F). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9475F.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9475F
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	48 / 96+700%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	4.8 GHz+12%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.65 GHz+26%
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	122,476+840%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	1,960+35%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	45,000+678%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 9475F uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR5-6000 on the EPYC 9475F — the EPYC 9475F supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9475F 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 9475F). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9475F) — the EPYC 9475F 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 9475F).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9475F
Socket	LGA1200	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR5-6000+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 9475F supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs AMD-V (EPYC 9475F). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, EPYC 9475F targets Server. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 9475F rivals Xeon 6952P.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9475F
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V
Target Use	Gaming	Server

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the EPYC 9475F debuted at $7592. On MSRP ($160 vs $7592), the Core i5-10400F is $7432 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 16.1 pts/$ for the EPYC 9475F — making the Core i5-10400F the 133.9% better value option.