Core i5-10400F vs FX-8320

Intel

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020
VS
AMD

FX-8320

8 Cores8 Thrd125 WWMax: 4 GHz2012

Core i5-10400F vs FX-8320 Performance Spectrum

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.

Core i5-10400F vs FX-8320 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core i5-10400F vs FX-8320: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Why buy it

  • βœ…Better for gaming: +50.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
  • βœ…Costs $9 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).
  • βœ…Delivers 151.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 32.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).
  • βœ…Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

FX-8320

2012

Why buy it

    Trade-offs

    • ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
    • ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (4,500 vs 8,191).
    • ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 32.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($169 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
    • ❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.

    Quick Answers

    So, is Core i5-10400F better than FX-8320?
    Yes. Core i5-10400F is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 50.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 82% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, 138.1% higher PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.
    Which one is better for gaming?
    If gaming is the priority, Core i5-10400F is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 50.1% more average FPS across 50 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 stronger fit. You are getting 82% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads.
    Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
    Core i5-10400F is the better buy right now. Core i5-10400F comes in $9 cheaper on MSRP at $160 MSRP versus $169 MSRP, and it still gives you a 50.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 151.5% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 32.4 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.
    Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
    Core i5-10400F makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2012) and more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 12 threads instead of 8/8. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

    Core i5-10400F vs FX-8320 Technical Specifications

    Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

    Intel

    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 (2020βˆ’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.

    AMD

    FX-8320

    The FX-8320 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 23 October 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Vishera (2012βˆ’2015) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L2 cache: 8192 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,472 points. Launch price was $149.

    ⚑

    Processing Power

    The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the FX-8320 offers 8 cores / 8 threads β€” the FX-8320 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4 GHz on the FX-8320 β€” a 7.2% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020βˆ’2025) architecture (14 nm), while the FX-8320 uses Vishera (2012βˆ’2015) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the FX-8320's 5,472 β€” a 81.7% lead for the Core i5-10400F. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 4,500 (58.2% advantage for the Core i5-10400F). Geekbench 6 single-core β€” the metric most relevant to gaming β€” records 1,454 vs 458, a 104.2% lead for the Core i5-10400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 1,791 (105.4% advantage for the Core i5-10400F).

    FeatureCore i5-10400FFX-8320
    Cores / Threads
    6 / 12
    8 / 8+33%
    Boost Clock
    4.3 GHz+7%
    4 GHz
    Base Clock
    2.9 GHz
    3.5 GHz+21%
    L3 Cache
    12 MB (total)
    β€”
    L2 Cache
    256K (per core)
    8192 kB+3100%
    Process
    14 nm-56%
    32 nm
    Architecture
    Comet Lake (2020βˆ’2025)
    Vishera (2012βˆ’2015)
    PassMark
    13,029+138%
    5,472
    Cinebench R23 Multi
    8,191+82%
    4,500
    Geekbench 6 Single
    1,454+217%
    458
    Geekbench 6 Multi
    5,783+223%
    1,791
    🧠

    Memory & Platform

    The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the FX-8320 uses AM3+ (PCIe 2.0) β€” making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR3-1866 on the FX-8320 β€” the Core i5-10400F supports 42.9% 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 32 GB β€” 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and 970,990X,990FX (FX-8320).

    FeatureCore i5-10400FFX-8320
    Socket
    LGA1200
    AM3+
    PCIe Generation
    PCIe 3.0+50%
    PCIe 2.0
    Max RAM Speed
    DDR4-2666+43%
    DDR3-1866
    Max RAM Capacity
    128 GB+300%
    32 GB
    RAM Channels
    2
    2
    ECC Support
    No
    No
    PCIe Lanes
    16
    16
    πŸ”§

    Advanced Features

    Only the FX-8320 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking β€” a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs AMD-V (FX-8320). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, FX-8320 targets Productivity. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; FX-8320 rivals Core i5-3570.

    FeatureCore i5-10400FFX-8320
    Integrated GPU
    No
    No
    Unlocked
    No
    Yes
    AVX-512
    No
    No
    Virtualization
    VT-x, VT-d
    AMD-V
    Target Use
    Gaming
    Productivity
    πŸ’°

    Value Analysis

    At launch, the Core i5-10400F was priced at $160, while the FX-8320 came in at $169. On launch pricing ($160 vs $169), Core i5-10400F was $9 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 32.4 pts/$ for the FX-8320 β€” making the Core i5-10400F the 86.2% better value option.

    FeatureCore i5-10400FFX-8320
    MSRP
    $160-5%
    $169
    Performance per Dollar
    81.4+151%
    32.4
    Release Date
    2020
    2012

    Affiliate Disclosure

    ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

    Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.