Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 9965

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9965

192 Cores384 Thrd500 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

160,778

+1134.0%

Ryzen 7 7700X

Ryzen 9 9900X

Ryzen 9 9950X3D

Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

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 $14,653 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $14,813 MSRP).
✅Delivers 650.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 10.9 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $14,813 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 500W, a 435W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9965.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9965 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 160,778).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9965, which brings 192 cores / 384 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9965 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

EPYC 9965

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +38.5% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 192 cores / 384 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 10.9 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($14,813 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 9965

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $14,653 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $14,813 MSRP).
✅Delivers 650.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 10.9 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $14,813 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 500W, a 435W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 9965.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +38.5% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 192 cores / 384 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 9965 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 160,778).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9965, which brings 192 cores / 384 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 9965 moves to SP5 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.9 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($14,813 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 9965 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9965 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 9965 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 38.5% 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 9965 is the better fit. You are getting 1134% better PassMark, backed by 192 cores and 384 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 9965 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 9965 is 9158.1% more expensive on MSRP at $14,813 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 38.5% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 650.3% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 10.9 PassMark/$), 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 9965 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 384 MB L3 cache instead of 12 MB, and more multi-core headroom with 192 cores / 384 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 9965 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9965
1080p
low	192 FPS	192 FPS
medium	152 FPS	156 FPS
high	123 FPS	126 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	158 FPS
medium	119 FPS	124 FPS
high	97 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	72 FPS
medium	70 FPS	60 FPS
high	55 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	39 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9965

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9965
1080p
low	326 FPS	274 FPS
medium	318 FPS	241 FPS
high	290 FPS	198 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	163 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	225 FPS
medium	292 FPS	202 FPS
high	267 FPS	171 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	137 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	139 FPS
medium	258 FPS	128 FPS
high	235 FPS	115 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	96 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9965

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9965
1080p
low	326 FPS	743 FPS
medium	326 FPS	610 FPS
high	326 FPS	556 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	481 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	594 FPS
medium	326 FPS	494 FPS
high	326 FPS	450 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	390 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	430 FPS
medium	326 FPS	335 FPS
high	289 FPS	298 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	240 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9965

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9965
1080p
low	326 FPS	962 FPS
medium	326 FPS	873 FPS
high	326 FPS	752 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	650 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	740 FPS
medium	326 FPS	648 FPS
high	326 FPS	554 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	476 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	531 FPS
medium	326 FPS	475 FPS
high	326 FPS	417 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	360 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 9965

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 9965

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 9965

The EPYC 9965 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 192 cores and 384 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 3 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 500 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 160,778 points. Launch price was $14,813.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 9965 offers 192 cores / 384 threads — the EPYC 9965 has 186 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9965 — 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 9965 uses Turin (2024) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 9965's 160,778 — a 170% lead for the EPYC 9965. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,520, a 4.4% lead for the EPYC 9965 that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 384 MB (total) on the EPYC 9965.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9965
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	192 / 384+3100%
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	3 nm-79%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Turin (2024)
PassMark	13,029	160,778+1134%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	1,520+5%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 9965 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 9965 — the EPYC 9965 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 9965). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 9965) — the EPYC 9965 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 9965).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9965
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	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 9965). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, EPYC 9965 targets Data Center / High Density. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 9965 rivals Xeon 6980P.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 9965
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V, SEV-SNP
Target Use	Gaming	Data Center / High Density

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the EPYC 9965 debuted at $14813. On MSRP ($160 vs $14813), the Core i5-10400F is $14653 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 10.9 pts/$ for the EPYC 9965 — making the Core i5-10400F the 153% better value option.