
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G
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
- ✅Costs $99 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $259 MSRP).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G across 39 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 20,465).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G
2021Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +29.4% higher average FPS across 39 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌61.9% HIGHER MSRP$259 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G
2021Why buy it
- ✅Costs $99 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $259 MSRP).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +29.4% higher average FPS across 39 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G across 39 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 20,465).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌61.9% HIGHER MSRP$259 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G better than Core i5-10400F?
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 | Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 220 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 183 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 145 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 109 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 187 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 153 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 122 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 91 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 89 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 79 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 62 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 48 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 392 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 324 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 289 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 249 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 348 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 296 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 269 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 227 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 268 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 233 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 215 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 180 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 512 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 512 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 512 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 423 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 512 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 420 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 378 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 346 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 296 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 258 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 198 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 512 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 512 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 512 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 512 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 512 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 512 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 512 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 488 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 512 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 459 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 403 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 349 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G

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.


Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G
Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G
The Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 1 June 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Cezanne (2021−2025) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.9 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 20,465 points. Launch price was $299.
Processing Power
Both the Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G share an identical 6-core/12-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.4 GHz on the Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G — a 2.3% clock advantage for the Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.9 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G uses Cezanne (2021−2025) (7 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G's 20,465 — a 44.4% lead for the Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 16 MB on the Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 6 / 12 |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz | 4.4 GHz+2% |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz | 3.9 GHz+34% |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 16 MB+33% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 512K (per core)+100% |
| Process | 14 nm | 7 nm-50% |
| Architecture | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | Cezanne (2021−2025) |
| PassMark | 13,029 | 20,465+57% |
| 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 5650G uses AM4 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G |
|---|---|---|
| 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 5650G). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G |
|---|---|---|
| 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 5650G debuted at $259. On MSRP ($160 vs $259), the Core i5-10400F is $99 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 79.0 pts/$ for the Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G — making the Core i5-10400F the 3% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 5 PRO 5650G |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $160-38% | $259 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.4+3% | 79.0 |
| Release Date | 2020 | 2021 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.











