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 $339 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Delivers 149.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 32.7 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 95W, a 30W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 7 1800X.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 1800X across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 9,314).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).

Ryzen 7 1800X

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.8% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
✅25% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 32.7 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($499 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌46.2% higher power demand at 95W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Ryzen 7 1800X

2017

Why buy it

✅Costs $339 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Delivers 149.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 32.7 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 95W, a 30W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 7 1800X.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.8% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
✅25% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 1800X across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 9,314).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 32.7 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($499 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌46.2% higher power demand at 95W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 7 1800X better than Core i5-10400F?

Yes. Ryzen 7 1800X is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 9.8% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data, 13.7% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, and 25.1% higher PassMark, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Ryzen 7 1800X is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 9.8% 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, Ryzen 7 1800X is the better fit. You are getting 13.7% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 8 cores and 16 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 7 1800X is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Ryzen 7 1800X is 211.9% more expensive on MSRP at $499 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 9.8% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 149.2% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 32.7 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper. That said, if you already own a compatible LGA1200 + DDR4 setup, Core i5-10400F can still make sense as a platform-matched option because it avoids a motherboard and RAM swap.

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). That makes it the safer long-term pick.

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 7 1800X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 7 1800X
1080p
low	192 FPS	213 FPS
medium	152 FPS	178 FPS
high	123 FPS	143 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	105 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	178 FPS
medium	119 FPS	146 FPS
high	97 FPS	115 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	84 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	70 FPS
medium	70 FPS	61 FPS
high	55 FPS	48 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	38 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 7 1800X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 7 1800X
1080p
low	326 FPS	284 FPS
medium	318 FPS	251 FPS
high	290 FPS	222 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	182 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	251 FPS
medium	292 FPS	227 FPS
high	267 FPS	200 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	164 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	182 FPS
medium	258 FPS	169 FPS
high	235 FPS	154 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	122 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 7 1800X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 7 1800X
1080p
low	326 FPS	408 FPS
medium	326 FPS	408 FPS
high	326 FPS	408 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	408 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	408 FPS
medium	326 FPS	408 FPS
high	326 FPS	391 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	328 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	376 FPS
medium	326 FPS	310 FPS
high	289 FPS	277 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	222 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 7 1800X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 7 1800X
1080p
low	326 FPS	408 FPS
medium	326 FPS	408 FPS
high	326 FPS	408 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	408 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	408 FPS
medium	326 FPS	408 FPS
high	326 FPS	408 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	408 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	408 FPS
medium	326 FPS	408 FPS
high	326 FPS	407 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	353 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 7 1800X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 7 1800X

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 7 1800X

The Ryzen 7 1800X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2 March 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Zen (2017−2020) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 16384 kB. L2 cache: 4096 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 16,305 points. Launch price was $499.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Ryzen 7 1800X offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Ryzen 7 1800X has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4 GHz on the Ryzen 7 1800X — a 7.2% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen 7 1800X uses Zen (2017−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen 7 1800X's 16,305 — a 22.3% lead for the Ryzen 7 1800X. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 9,314 (12.8% advantage for the Ryzen 7 1800X). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,130, a 25.1% lead for the Core i5-10400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 5,700 (1.4% advantage for the Core i5-10400F). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 16384 kB on the Ryzen 7 1800X.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 7 1800X
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 16+33%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+7%	4 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.6 GHz+24%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	16384 kB+33%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	4096 kB+1500%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Zen (2017−2020)
PassMark	13,029	16,305+25%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	9,314+14%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454+29%	1,130
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783+1%	5,700

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Ryzen 7 1800X uses AM4 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. Both support up to 128 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 20 (Ryzen 7 1800X) — the Ryzen 7 1800X offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and AM4 (Ryzen 7 1800X).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 7 1800X
Socket	LGA1200	AM4
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2666
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	128 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	20+25%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Ryzen 7 1800X 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 (Ryzen 7 1800X). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Ryzen 7 1800X targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Ryzen 7 1800X rivals Core i7-8700.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 7 1800X
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V
Target Use	Gaming	Gaming

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Ryzen 7 1800X debuted at $499. On MSRP ($160 vs $499), the Core i5-10400F is $339 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 32.7 pts/$ for the Ryzen 7 1800X — making the Core i5-10400F the 85.5% better value option.