
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

FX-8300
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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
2020Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +66.1% higher average FPS across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $37 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $197 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 200.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 27.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $197 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 95W, a 30W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.
FX-8300
2012Why buy it
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (5,333 vs 13,029).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 27.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($197 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌46.2% higher power demand at 95W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020FX-8300
2012Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +66.1% higher average FPS across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $37 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $197 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 200.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 27.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $197 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 95W, a 30W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Why buy it
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (5,333 vs 13,029).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 27.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($197 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌46.2% higher power demand at 95W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i5-10400F better than FX-8300?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | FX-8300 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 133 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 133 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 116 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 96 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 133 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 117 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 93 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 77 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 63 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 57 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 45 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 36 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | FX-8300 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 133 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 133 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 133 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 133 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 133 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 133 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 133 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 133 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 133 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 133 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | FX-8300 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 133 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 133 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | FX-8300 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 133 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and FX-8300

Core i5-10400F
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-8300
FX-8300
The FX-8300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 23 October 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L2 cache: 8192 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,333 points. Launch price was $149.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the FX-8300 offers 8 cores / 8 threads — the FX-8300 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.2 GHz on the FX-8300 — a 2.4% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.3 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the FX-8300 uses Vishera (2012−2015) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the FX-8300's 5,333 — a 83.8% lead for the Core i5-10400F.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | FX-8300 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 8 / 8+33% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz+2% | 4.2 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz | 3.3 GHz+14% |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | — |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 8192 kB+3100% |
| Process | 14 nm-56% | 32 nm |
| Architecture | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | Vishera (2012−2015) |
| PassMark | 13,029+144% | 5,333 |
| 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-8300 uses AM3+ (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | FX-8300 |
|---|---|---|
| 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-8300). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | FX-8300 |
|---|---|---|
| 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-8300 debuted at $197. On MSRP ($160 vs $197), the Core i5-10400F is $37 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 27.1 pts/$ for the FX-8300 — making the Core i5-10400F the 100.2% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | FX-8300 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $160-19% | $197 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.4+200% | 27.1 |
| Release Date | 2020 | 2012 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












