Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 9754

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9754

128 Cores256 Thrd360 WWMax: 3.1 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

98,450

+655.6%

Ryzen AI Max+ 395

Ryzen 9 9950X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7980X

Ryzen Threadripper 9980X

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 $11,740 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $11,900 MSRP).
✅Delivers 884.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 8.3 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $11,900 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 360W, a 295W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9754.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9754 across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 104,584).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9754, which brings 128 cores / 256 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9754 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9754

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +27.6% higher average FPS across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 128 cores / 256 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 8.3 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($11,900 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌453.8% higher power demand at 360W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

EPYC 9754

2023

Why buy it

✅Costs $11,740 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $11,900 MSRP).
✅Delivers 884.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 8.3 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $11,900 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 360W, a 295W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9754.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +27.6% higher average FPS across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 128 cores / 256 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 9754 across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 104,584).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9754, which brings 128 cores / 256 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9754 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.3 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($11,900 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌453.8% higher power demand at 360W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9754 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9754 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 9754 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 27.6% 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 9754 is the better fit. You are getting 1176.8% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 128 cores and 256 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 9754 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9754 is 7337.5% more expensive on MSRP at $11,900 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 27.6% average FPS lead across 7 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 884.3% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 8.3 PassMark/$), 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 9754 is the more future-proof choice 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 256 MB L3 cache instead of 12 MB, and more multi-core headroom with 128 cores / 256 threads instead of 6/12. 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 9754 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9754
1080p
low	192 FPS	163 FPS
medium	152 FPS	134 FPS
high	123 FPS	113 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	89 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	143 FPS
medium	119 FPS	114 FPS
high	97 FPS	90 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	72 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	68 FPS
medium	70 FPS	58 FPS
high	55 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	37 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9754

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9754
1080p
low	326 FPS	238 FPS
medium	318 FPS	211 FPS
high	290 FPS	174 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	138 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	195 FPS
medium	292 FPS	177 FPS
high	267 FPS	151 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	116 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	121 FPS
medium	258 FPS	112 FPS
high	235 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	79 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9754

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9754
1080p
low	326 FPS	650 FPS
medium	326 FPS	541 FPS
high	326 FPS	481 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	422 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	503 FPS
medium	326 FPS	418 FPS
high	326 FPS	365 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	318 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	371 FPS
medium	326 FPS	289 FPS
high	289 FPS	246 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	199 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9754

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9754
1080p
low	326 FPS	876 FPS
medium	326 FPS	793 FPS
high	326 FPS	682 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	592 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	695 FPS
medium	326 FPS	602 FPS
high	326 FPS	515 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	435 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	495 FPS
medium	326 FPS	441 FPS
high	326 FPS	387 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	330 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9754

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 9754

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 9754

The EPYC 9754 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 13 June 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Bergamo (2023) architecture. It features 128 cores and 256 threads. Base frequency is 2.25 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 360 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 98,450 points. Launch price was $11,900.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 9754 offers 128 cores / 256 threads — the EPYC 9754 has 122 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.1 GHz on the EPYC 9754 — a 32.4% 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 9754 uses Bergamo (2023) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 9754's 98,450 — a 153.3% lead for the EPYC 9754. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 104,584 (170.9% advantage for the EPYC 9754). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,634, a 11.7% lead for the EPYC 9754 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 16,825 (97.7% advantage for the EPYC 9754). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9754.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9754
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	128 / 256+2033%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+39%	3.1 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+29%	2.25 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-64%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Bergamo (2023)
PassMark	13,029	98,450+656%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	104,584+1177%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	1,634+12%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	16,825+191%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 9754 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 9754 — the EPYC 9754 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 9754). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9754) — the EPYC 9754 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 9754).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9754
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 9754). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, EPYC 9754 targets Data Center / Cloud Native. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 9754 rivals Xeon 6780E.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9754
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V, SEV-SNP
Target Use	Gaming	Data Center / Cloud Native

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the EPYC 9754 debuted at $11900. On MSRP ($160 vs $11900), the Core i5-10400F is $11740 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 8.3 pts/$ for the EPYC 9754 — making the Core i5-10400F the 163.1% better value option.