Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 9634

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9634

84 Cores168 Thrd290 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2022

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

107,944

+728.5%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen 9 9950X3D

Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

Ryzen Threadripper 9980X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX

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 $10,144 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $10,304 MSRP).
✅Delivers 677.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 10.5 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $10,304 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 290W, a 225W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9634.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9634 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 85,000).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9634, which brings 84 cores / 168 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9634 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9634

2022

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +33.0% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 84 cores / 168 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 10.5 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($10,304 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌346.2% higher power demand at 290W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

EPYC 9634

2022

Why buy it

✅Costs $10,144 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $10,304 MSRP).
✅Delivers 677.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 10.5 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $10,304 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 290W, a 225W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9634.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +33.0% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 84 cores / 168 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 9634 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 85,000).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9634, which brings 84 cores / 168 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9634 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.5 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($10,304 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 9634 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9634 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 9634 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 33.0% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 384 MB vs 12 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9634 is the better fit. You are getting 1369.8% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 84 cores and 168 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 3100% larger total L3 cache (384 MB vs 12 MB).

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

EPYC 9634 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9634 is 6340.0% more expensive on MSRP at $10,304 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 33.0% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 677.3% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 10.5 PassMark/$), 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 9634 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2022 vs 2020), a healthier platform with SP5 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200, 3D V-Cache and a much larger 384 MB L3 cache instead of 12 MB, more multi-core headroom with 84 cores / 168 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 9634 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9634
1080p
low	192 FPS	170 FPS
medium	152 FPS	141 FPS
high	123 FPS	122 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	96 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	148 FPS
medium	119 FPS	119 FPS
high	97 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	70 FPS
medium	70 FPS	59 FPS
high	55 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	39 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9634

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9634
1080p
low	326 FPS	280 FPS
medium	318 FPS	246 FPS
high	290 FPS	202 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	166 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	230 FPS
medium	292 FPS	207 FPS
high	267 FPS	175 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	139 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	142 FPS
medium	258 FPS	130 FPS
high	235 FPS	117 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	98 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9634

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9634
1080p
low	326 FPS	671 FPS
medium	326 FPS	560 FPS
high	326 FPS	522 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	454 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	511 FPS
medium	326 FPS	425 FPS
high	326 FPS	389 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	337 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	376 FPS
medium	326 FPS	293 FPS
high	289 FPS	262 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	210 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9634

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9634
1080p
low	326 FPS	899 FPS
medium	326 FPS	819 FPS
high	326 FPS	706 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	621 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	722 FPS
medium	326 FPS	629 FPS
high	326 FPS	538 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	459 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	518 FPS
medium	326 FPS	462 FPS
high	326 FPS	406 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	349 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9634

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 9634

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 9634

The EPYC 9634 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 84 cores and 168 threads. Base frequency is 2.25 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 384 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: 107,944 points. Launch price was $10,304.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 9634 offers 84 cores / 168 threads — the EPYC 9634 has 78 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9634 — a 15% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.25 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 9634 uses Genoa (2022−2023) (5 nm, 6 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 9634's 107,944 — a 156.9% lead for the EPYC 9634. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,800, a 21.3% lead for the EPYC 9634 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 85,000 (174.5% advantage for the EPYC 9634). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 384 MB (total) on the EPYC 9634.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9634
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	84 / 168+1300%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+16%	3.7 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+29%	2.25 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	384 MB (total)+3100%
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	107,944+728%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	1,800+24%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	85,000+1370%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 9634 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 9634 — the EPYC 9634 supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9634 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 9634). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9634) — the EPYC 9634 offers 112 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and SoC (EPYC 9634).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9634
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	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 9634 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs AMD-V (EPYC 9634). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, EPYC 9634 targets Server/Datacenter. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 9634 rivals Xeon 8470.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9634
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V
Target Use	Gaming	Server/Datacenter

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the EPYC 9634 debuted at $10304. On MSRP ($160 vs $10304), the Core i5-10400F is $10144 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 10.5 pts/$ for the EPYC 9634 — making the Core i5-10400F the 154.4% better value option.