Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 9755

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9755

128 Cores256 Thrd500 WWMax: 4.1 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

166,328

+1176.6%

Ryzen 7 9700X

Ryzen 9 9900X3D

Ryzen 9 9950X3D

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX

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 $12,824 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $12,984 MSRP).
✅Delivers 535.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 12.8 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $12,984 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 500W, a 435W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9755.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9755 across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 29,300).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9755, which brings 128 cores / 256 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9755 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9755

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +65.5% higher average FPS across 3 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 12.8 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($12,984 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌669.2% higher power demand at 500W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

EPYC 9755

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $12,824 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $12,984 MSRP).
✅Delivers 535.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 12.8 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $12,984 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 500W, a 435W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9755.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +65.5% higher average FPS across 3 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 9755 across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 29,300).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9755, which brings 128 cores / 256 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9755 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.8 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($12,984 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌669.2% higher power demand at 500W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 9755 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9755 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 9755 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 65.5% more average FPS across 3 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 512 MB vs 12 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9755 is the better fit. You are getting 406.7% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 128 cores and 256 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 4166.7% larger total L3 cache (512 MB vs 12 MB).

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

EPYC 9755 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9755 is 8015.0% more expensive on MSRP at $12,984 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 65.5% average FPS lead across 3 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 535.7% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 12.8 PassMark/$), 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 9755 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 512 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 9755 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9755
1080p
low	192 FPS	170 FPS
medium	152 FPS	141 FPS
high	123 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	95 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	148 FPS
medium	119 FPS	119 FPS
high	97 FPS	95 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	76 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	69 FPS
medium	70 FPS	59 FPS
high	55 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	38 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9755

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9755
1080p
low	326 FPS	581 FPS
medium	318 FPS	510 FPS
high	290 FPS	414 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	361 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	489 FPS
medium	292 FPS	437 FPS
high	267 FPS	365 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	302 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	304 FPS
medium	258 FPS	275 FPS
high	235 FPS	247 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	221 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9755

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9755
1080p
low	326 FPS	741 FPS
medium	326 FPS	632 FPS
high	326 FPS	574 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	505 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	558 FPS
medium	326 FPS	473 FPS
high	326 FPS	423 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	366 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	403 FPS
medium	326 FPS	324 FPS
high	289 FPS	286 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	229 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9755

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9755
1080p
low	326 FPS	915 FPS
medium	326 FPS	830 FPS
high	326 FPS	715 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	632 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	726 FPS
medium	326 FPS	633 FPS
high	326 FPS	542 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	469 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	524 FPS
medium	326 FPS	468 FPS
high	326 FPS	411 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	352 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9755

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 9755

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 9755

The EPYC 9755 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 128 cores and 256 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 4.1 GHz. L3 cache: 512 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 500 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 166,328 points. Launch price was $12,984.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 9755 offers 128 cores / 256 threads — the EPYC 9755 has 122 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.1 GHz on the EPYC 9755 — a 4.8% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 9755 uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 9755's 166,328 — a 170.9% lead for the EPYC 9755. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 2,800, a 63.3% lead for the EPYC 9755 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 29,300 (134.1% advantage for the EPYC 9755). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 512 MB (total) on the EPYC 9755.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9755
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	128 / 256+2033%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+5%	4.1 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+7%	2.7 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	512 MB (total)+4167%
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	166,328+1177%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	2,800+93%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	29,300+407%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 9755 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 9755 — the EPYC 9755 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 9 TB — 173.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 12 (EPYC 9755). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9755) — the EPYC 9755 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 9755).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9755
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	9 TB+7100%
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 9755). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, EPYC 9755 targets Data Center / Cloud Computing. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 9755 rivals Xeon 6980P.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9755
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V, SEV-SNP
Target Use	Gaming	Data Center / Cloud Computing

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the EPYC 9755 debuted at $12984. On MSRP ($160 vs $12984), the Core i5-10400F is $12824 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 12.8 pts/$ for the EPYC 9755 — making the Core i5-10400F the 145.6% better value option.