Core i5-10400F vs FX-8320E

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

FX-8320E

8 Cores8 Thrd95 WWMax: 4 GHz2014

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

+162.7%

4,960

0.0%

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: +133.5% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Delivers 141.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 33.7 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $147 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 95W, a 30W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌
8.8% HIGHER MSRP
$160 MSRPvs$147 MSRP

FX-8320E

2014

Why buy it

✅Costs $13 less on MSRP ($147 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (1,734 vs 5,783).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 33.7 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($147 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌46.2% higher power demand at 95W vs 65W.

Core i5-10400F

2020

FX-8320E

2014

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +133.5% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Delivers 141.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 33.7 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $147 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

✅Costs $13 less on MSRP ($147 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌
8.8% HIGHER MSRP
$160 MSRPvs$147 MSRP

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (1,734 vs 5,783).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 33.7 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($147 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌46.2% higher power demand at 95W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-10400F better than FX-8320E?

Yes. Core i5-10400F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 133.5% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data, 233.5% better Geekbench multi-core, 162.7% 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 133.5% more average FPS across 2 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 233.5% better Geekbench 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 smarter buy today. Core i5-10400F is 8.8% more expensive on MSRP at $160 MSRP versus $147 MSRP, and it gives you a 133.5% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 141.3% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 33.7 PassMark/$), 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 2014) 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-8320E Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	FX-8320E
1080p
low	192 FPS	124 FPS
medium	152 FPS	124 FPS
high	123 FPS	116 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	95 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	124 FPS
medium	119 FPS	117 FPS
high	97 FPS	93 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	76 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-8320E

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	FX-8320E
1080p
low	326 FPS	124 FPS
medium	318 FPS	124 FPS
high	290 FPS	124 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	124 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	124 FPS
medium	292 FPS	124 FPS
high	267 FPS	124 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	124 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	124 FPS
medium	258 FPS	124 FPS
high	235 FPS	124 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	120 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open FX-8320E

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	FX-8320E
1080p
low	326 FPS	124 FPS
medium	326 FPS	124 FPS
high	326 FPS	124 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	124 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	124 FPS
medium	326 FPS	124 FPS
high	326 FPS	124 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	124 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	124 FPS
medium	326 FPS	124 FPS
high	289 FPS	124 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	124 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open FX-8320E

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	FX-8320E
1080p
low	326 FPS	124 FPS
medium	326 FPS	124 FPS
high	326 FPS	124 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	124 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	124 FPS
medium	326 FPS	124 FPS
high	326 FPS	124 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	124 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	124 FPS
medium	326 FPS	124 FPS
high	326 FPS	124 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	124 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open FX-8320E

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and FX-8320E

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-8320E

The FX-8320E is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2 September 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 4 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: 4,960 points. Launch price was $147.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the FX-8320E offers 8 cores / 8 threads — the FX-8320E has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4 GHz on the FX-8320E — a 7.2% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the FX-8320E uses Vishera (2012−2015) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the FX-8320E's 4,960 — a 89.7% lead for the Core i5-10400F. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 439, a 107.2% lead for the Core i5-10400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 1,734 (107.7% advantage for the Core i5-10400F).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	FX-8320E
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 8+33%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+7%	4 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.2 GHz+10%
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+163%	4,960
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454+231%	439
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783+234%	1,734

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the FX-8320E 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-8320E — 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 32 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 0 (FX-8320E) — 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-8320E).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	FX-8320E
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+300%	32 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the FX-8320E 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-8320E). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	FX-8320E
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-8320E debuted at $147. On MSRP ($160 vs $147), the FX-8320E is $13 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 33.7 pts/$ for the FX-8320E — making the Core i5-10400F the 82.8% better value option.