Core i5-10400F vs FX-8120

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

FX-8120

8 Cores8 Thrd125 WWMax: 4 GHz2011

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

+97.6%

6,594

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

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: +70.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Costs $45 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $205 MSRP).
✅Delivers 153.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 32.2 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $205 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

FX-8120

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (6,594 vs 13,029).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 32.2 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($205 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.

Core i5-10400F

2020

FX-8120

2011

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +70.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Costs $45 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $205 MSRP).
✅Delivers 153.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 32.2 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $205 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W 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 PassMark (6,594 vs 13,029).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 32.2 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($205 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-10400F better than FX-8120?

Yes. Core i5-10400F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 70.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data, 97.6% better 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 70.3% 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 97.6% better PassMark, 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 $45 cheaper on MSRP at $160 MSRP versus $205 MSRP, and it gives you a 70.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 153.2% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 32.2 PassMark/$), 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-8120 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	FX-8120
1080p
low	192 FPS	165 FPS
medium	152 FPS	142 FPS
high	123 FPS	115 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	95 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	138 FPS
medium	119 FPS	117 FPS
high	97 FPS	92 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	75 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	63 FPS
medium	70 FPS	57 FPS
high	55 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	35 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open FX-8120

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	FX-8120
1080p
low	326 FPS	165 FPS
medium	318 FPS	165 FPS
high	290 FPS	165 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	165 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	165 FPS
medium	292 FPS	165 FPS
high	267 FPS	165 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	152 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	165 FPS
medium	258 FPS	161 FPS
high	235 FPS	147 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	118 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open FX-8120

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	FX-8120
1080p
low	326 FPS	165 FPS
medium	326 FPS	165 FPS
high	326 FPS	165 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	165 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	165 FPS
medium	326 FPS	165 FPS
high	326 FPS	165 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	165 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	165 FPS
medium	326 FPS	165 FPS
high	289 FPS	165 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	165 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open FX-8120

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	FX-8120
1080p
low	326 FPS	165 FPS
medium	326 FPS	165 FPS
high	326 FPS	165 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	165 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	165 FPS
medium	326 FPS	165 FPS
high	326 FPS	165 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	165 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	165 FPS
medium	326 FPS	165 FPS
high	326 FPS	165 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	165 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open FX-8120

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and FX-8120

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-8120

The FX-8120 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 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 8192 kB. L2 cache: 8192 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,594 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the FX-8120 offers 8 cores / 8 threads — the FX-8120 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4 GHz on the FX-8120 — a 7.2% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.1 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the FX-8120 uses Zambezi (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the FX-8120's 6,594 — a 65.6% lead for the Core i5-10400F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 8192 kB on the FX-8120.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	FX-8120
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 8+33%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+7%	4 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.1 GHz+7%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)+50%	8192 kB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	8192 kB+3100%
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Zambezi (2011−2012)
PassMark	13,029+98%	6,594
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the FX-8120 uses AM3+ (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	FX-8120
Socket	LGA1200	AM3+
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	—
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) / not specified (FX-8120). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	FX-8120
Integrated GPU	No	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	—
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the FX-8120 debuted at $205. On MSRP ($160 vs $205), the Core i5-10400F is $45 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 32.2 pts/$ for the FX-8120 — making the Core i5-10400F the 86.7% better value option.