
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

Ryzen 7 8840HS
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
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 7 8840HS.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 8840HS across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 25,156).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Ryzen 7 8840HS mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌132.1% higher power demand at 65W vs 28W.
Ryzen 7 8840HS
2023Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +61.9% higher average FPS across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Draws 28W instead of 65W, a 37W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on FP8 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
Trade-offs
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020Ryzen 7 8840HS
2023Why buy it
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 7 8840HS.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +61.9% higher average FPS across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅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 7 8840HS across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 25,156).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Ryzen 7 8840HS mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌132.1% higher power demand at 65W vs 28W.
Trade-offs
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Ryzen 7 8840HS 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 7 8840HS |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 255 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 235 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 198 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 170 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 227 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 189 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 154 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 136 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 157 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 133 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 103 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 91 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 7 8840HS |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 469 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 388 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 336 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 301 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 410 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 358 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 310 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 265 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 270 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 247 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 234 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 202 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 7 8840HS |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 629 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 629 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 629 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 594 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 629 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 622 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 525 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 451 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 521 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 458 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 406 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 345 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 7 8840HS |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 629 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 629 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 629 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 629 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 629 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 629 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 629 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 548 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 559 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 501 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 446 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 384 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 7 8840HS

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 7 8840HS
Ryzen 7 8840HS
The Ryzen 7 8840HS is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 6 December 2023 (1 year ago). It is based on the Hawk Point-HS (Zen 4) (2023−2024) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 5.1 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: 25,156 points. Launch price was $299.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Ryzen 7 8840HS offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Ryzen 7 8840HS has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5.1 GHz on the Ryzen 7 8840HS — a 17% clock advantage for the Ryzen 7 8840HS (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.3 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen 7 8840HS uses Hawk Point-HS (Zen 4) (2023−2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen 7 8840HS's 25,156 — a 63.5% lead for the Ryzen 7 8840HS. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 16 MB (total) on the Ryzen 7 8840HS.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 7 8840HS |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 8 / 16+33% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz | 5.1 GHz+19% |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz | 3.3 GHz+14% |
| 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-HS (Zen 4) (2023−2024) |
| PassMark | 13,029 | 25,156+93% |
| 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 7 8840HS uses FP8 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 7 8840HS |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | FP8 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 4.0+33% |
| 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 7 8840HS). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 7 8840HS |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | — |
| Target Use | Gaming | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.











