Core i5-10400F vs FX-8100

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

FX-8100

8 Cores8 Thrd95 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2011

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

+218.2%

4,095

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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

✅Better for gaming: +150.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Costs $140 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
✅Delivers 496.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 13.7 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 95W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

FX-8100

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (1,621 vs 5,783).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.7 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($300 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌46.2% higher power demand at 95W vs 65W.

Core i5-10400F

2020

FX-8100

2011

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +150.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Costs $140 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
✅Delivers 496.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 13.7 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 95W, a 30W reduction.

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (1,621 vs 5,783).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.7 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($300 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌46.2% higher power demand at 95W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-10400F better than FX-8100?

Yes. Core i5-10400F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 150.6% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data, 256.8% better Geekbench multi-core, 218.2% higher PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i5-10400F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 150.6% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-10400F is the better fit. You are getting 256.8% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).

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

Core i5-10400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-10400F is $140 cheaper on MSRP at $160 MSRP versus $300 MSRP, and it gives you a 150.6% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 496.6% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 13.7 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core i5-10400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2011), 50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 12 threads instead of 8/8. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

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

FX-8100 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	FX-8100
1080p
low	192 FPS	102 FPS
medium	152 FPS	102 FPS
high	123 FPS	102 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	95 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	102 FPS
medium	119 FPS	102 FPS
high	97 FPS	92 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	75 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	63 FPS
medium	70 FPS	56 FPS
high	55 FPS	44 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	35 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open FX-8100

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	FX-8100
1080p
low	326 FPS	102 FPS
medium	318 FPS	102 FPS
high	290 FPS	102 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	102 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	102 FPS
medium	292 FPS	102 FPS
high	267 FPS	102 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	102 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	102 FPS
medium	258 FPS	102 FPS
high	235 FPS	102 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	102 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open FX-8100

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	FX-8100
1080p
low	326 FPS	102 FPS
medium	326 FPS	102 FPS
high	326 FPS	102 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	102 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	102 FPS
medium	326 FPS	102 FPS
high	326 FPS	102 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	102 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	102 FPS
medium	326 FPS	102 FPS
high	289 FPS	102 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	102 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open FX-8100

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	FX-8100
1080p
low	326 FPS	102 FPS
medium	326 FPS	102 FPS
high	326 FPS	102 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	102 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	102 FPS
medium	326 FPS	102 FPS
high	326 FPS	102 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	102 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	102 FPS
medium	326 FPS	102 FPS
high	326 FPS	102 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	102 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open FX-8100

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and FX-8100

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.

FX-8100

The FX-8100 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 12 October 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Zambezi (2011−2012) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 8 MB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 4,095 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the FX-8100 offers 8 cores / 8 threads — the FX-8100 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.7 GHz on the FX-8100 — a 15% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the FX-8100 uses Zambezi (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the FX-8100's 4,095 — a 104.3% lead for the Core i5-10400F. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 455, a 104.7% lead for the Core i5-10400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 1,621 (112.4% advantage for the Core i5-10400F). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 8 MB (total) on the FX-8100.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	FX-8100
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 8+33%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+16%	3.7 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+4%	2.8 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)+50%	8 MB (total)
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	8 MB+3100%
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Zambezi (2011−2012)
PassMark	13,029+218%	4,095
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454+220%	455
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783+257%	1,621

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the FX-8100 uses AM3+ (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR3-1866 on the FX-8100 — the Core i5-10400F supports 28.6% 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 16 GB — 155.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 0 (FX-8100) — the Core i5-10400F offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and AMD 990FX,AMD 970 (FX-8100).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	FX-8100
Socket	LGA1200	AM3+
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666+33%	DDR3-1866
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+700%	16 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the FX-8100 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs AMD-V (FX-8100). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	FX-8100
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the FX-8100 debuted at $300. On MSRP ($160 vs $300), the Core i5-10400F is $140 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 13.7 pts/$ for the FX-8100 — making the Core i5-10400F the 142.6% better value option.