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

✅Costs $40 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 5 230.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 5 230 across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 20,186).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 100.9 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).
❌132.1% higher power demand at 65W vs 28W.

Ryzen 5 230

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +34.3% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Delivers 23.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 100.9 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($200 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
✅Draws 28W instead of 65W, a 37W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FP8 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌
25% HIGHER MSRP
$200 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Ryzen 5 230

2025

Why buy it

✅Costs $40 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 5 230.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +34.3% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Delivers 23.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 100.9 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($200 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
✅Draws 28W instead of 65W, a 37W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FP8 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 5 230 across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 20,186).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 100.9 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $200 MSRP).
❌132.1% higher power demand at 65W vs 28W.

Trade-offs

❌
25% HIGHER MSRP
$200 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 5 230 better than Core i5-10400F?

Yes. Ryzen 5 230 is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 34.3% average FPS lead across 3 shared CPU game tests in our data, 54.9% 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, Ryzen 5 230 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 34.3% more average FPS across 3 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen 5 230 is the better fit. You are getting 54.9% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Ryzen 5 230 is the smarter buy today. Ryzen 5 230 is 25.0% more expensive on MSRP at $200 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 34.3% average FPS lead across 3 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 23.9% better value on MSRP (100.9 vs 81.4 PassMark/$), 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?

Ryzen 5 230 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2020), a healthier platform with FP8 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200, 33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 12 threads instead of 6/12. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

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

Ryzen 5 230 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 5 230
1080p
low	192 FPS	261 FPS
medium	152 FPS	237 FPS
high	123 FPS	199 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	171 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	230 FPS
medium	119 FPS	190 FPS
high	97 FPS	155 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	137 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	159 FPS
medium	70 FPS	133 FPS
high	55 FPS	103 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	91 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 5 230

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 5 230
1080p
low	326 FPS	372 FPS
medium	318 FPS	309 FPS
high	290 FPS	272 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	236 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	313 FPS
medium	292 FPS	270 FPS
high	267 FPS	244 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	207 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	234 FPS
medium	258 FPS	206 FPS
high	235 FPS	191 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	161 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 5 230

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 5 230
1080p
low	326 FPS	505 FPS
medium	326 FPS	505 FPS
high	326 FPS	505 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	505 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	505 FPS
medium	326 FPS	505 FPS
high	326 FPS	505 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	443 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	493 FPS
medium	326 FPS	435 FPS
high	289 FPS	372 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	308 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 5 230

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 5 230
1080p
low	326 FPS	505 FPS
medium	326 FPS	505 FPS
high	326 FPS	505 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	505 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	505 FPS
medium	326 FPS	505 FPS
high	326 FPS	505 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	505 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	505 FPS
medium	326 FPS	501 FPS
high	326 FPS	442 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	380 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 5 230

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 5 230

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.

Ryzen 5 230

The Ryzen 5 230 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 6 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Hawk Point (2024−2025) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: FP8. Thermal design power (TDP): 28 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 20,186 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 5 230 share an identical 6-core/12-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.9 GHz on the Ryzen 5 230 — a 13% clock advantage for the Ryzen 5 230 (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen 5 230 uses Hawk Point (2024−2025) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen 5 230's 20,186 — a 43.1% lead for the Ryzen 5 230. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 16 MB (total) on the Ryzen 5 230.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 5 230
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	6 / 12
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	4.9 GHz+14%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.5 GHz+21%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	16 MB (total)+33%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	1 MB (per core)+300%
Process	14 nm	4 nm-71%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Hawk Point (2024−2025)
PassMark	13,029	20,186+55%
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 Ryzen 5 230 uses FP8 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 5 230
Socket	LGA1200	FP8
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
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 (Ryzen 5 230). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 5 230
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 Ryzen 5 230 debuted at $200. On MSRP ($160 vs $200), the Core i5-10400F is $40 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 100.9 pts/$ for the Ryzen 5 230 — making the Ryzen 5 230 the 21.4% better value option.