Core i5-10400F vs Ryzen 5 PRO 1600

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Ryzen 5 PRO 1600

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 3.6 GHz2017

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

+9.7%

11,875

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

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: +12.5% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $59 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $219 MSRP).
✅Delivers 50.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 54.2 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $219 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 5 PRO 1600.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).

Ryzen 5 PRO 1600

2017

Why buy it

✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (11,875 vs 13,029).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 54.2 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($219 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Ryzen 5 PRO 1600

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.5% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $59 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $219 MSRP).
✅Delivers 50.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 54.2 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $219 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 5 PRO 1600.

Why buy it

✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (11,875 vs 13,029).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 54.2 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($219 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-10400F better than Ryzen 5 PRO 1600?

Yes. Core i5-10400F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 12.5% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data, 9.7% 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 12.5% 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 9.7% better PassMark, 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 $59 cheaper on MSRP at $160 MSRP versus $219 MSRP, and it gives you a 12.5% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 50.2% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 54.2 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper. That said, if you already own a compatible AM4 + DDR4 setup, Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 can still make sense as a platform-matched option because it avoids a motherboard and RAM swap, but on MSRP alone you would want to find it meaningfully cheaper in real-world listings before that path becomes easy to justify.

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 2017) and more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 12 threads instead of 6/12. 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

Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 5 PRO 1600
1080p
low	192 FPS	176 FPS
medium	152 FPS	153 FPS
high	123 FPS	127 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	103 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	145 FPS
medium	119 FPS	121 FPS
high	97 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	66 FPS
medium	70 FPS	59 FPS
high	55 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	37 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 5 PRO 1600

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 5 PRO 1600
1080p
low	326 FPS	203 FPS
medium	318 FPS	177 FPS
high	290 FPS	162 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	125 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	180 FPS
medium	292 FPS	159 FPS
high	267 FPS	145 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	115 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	141 FPS
medium	258 FPS	127 FPS
high	235 FPS	108 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	79 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 5 PRO 1600

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 5 PRO 1600
1080p
low	326 FPS	297 FPS
medium	326 FPS	297 FPS
high	326 FPS	297 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	297 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	297 FPS
medium	326 FPS	297 FPS
high	326 FPS	297 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	297 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	297 FPS
medium	326 FPS	269 FPS
high	289 FPS	237 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	189 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 5 PRO 1600

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 5 PRO 1600
1080p
low	326 FPS	297 FPS
medium	326 FPS	297 FPS
high	326 FPS	297 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	297 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	297 FPS
medium	326 FPS	297 FPS
high	326 FPS	297 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	297 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	297 FPS
medium	326 FPS	297 FPS
high	326 FPS	297 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	297 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 5 PRO 1600

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 5 PRO 1600

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 PRO 1600

The Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 June 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Zen (2017−2020) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Dual-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 11,875 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 share an identical 6-core/12-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.6 GHz on the Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 — a 17.7% 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 Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 uses Zen (2017−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen 5 PRO 1600's 11,875 — a 9.3% lead for the Core i5-10400F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 16 MB (total) on the Ryzen 5 PRO 1600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 5 PRO 1600
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	6 / 12
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+19%	3.6 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.2 GHz+10%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	16 MB (total)+33%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512K (per core)+100%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Zen (2017−2020)
PassMark	13,029+10%	11,875
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 PRO 1600 uses AM4 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 5 PRO 1600
Socket	LGA1200	AM4
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 PRO 1600). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 5 PRO 1600
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 PRO 1600 debuted at $219. On MSRP ($160 vs $219), the Core i5-10400F is $59 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 54.2 pts/$ for the Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 — making the Core i5-10400F the 40.1% better value option.