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

✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 7 8840HX.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 8840HX across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 42,275).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Ryzen 7 8840HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.

Ryzen 7 8840HX

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +81.3% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FL1 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
✅75% more PCIe lanes (28 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Ryzen 7 8840HX

2025

Why buy it

✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 7 8840HX.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +81.3% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FL1 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
✅75% more PCIe lanes (28 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 8840HX across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 42,275).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Ryzen 7 8840HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 7 8840HX better than Core i5-10400F?

Yes. Ryzen 7 8840HX is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 81.3% average FPS lead across 3 shared CPU game tests in our data, 224.5% 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 7 8840HX is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 81.3% 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 7 8840HX is the better fit. You are getting 224.5% better PassMark, backed by 12 cores and 24 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Ryzen 7 8840HX is the smarter buy by a wide margin for a fresh build. Ryzen 7 8840HX is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 81.3% average FPS lead across 3 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that is mostly used-market pricing on an obsolete 2020 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (81.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a very cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1200.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Ryzen 7 8840HX is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2020), a healthier platform with FL1 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200, 433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 12 cores / 24 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 7 8840HX Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 7 8840HX
1080p
low	192 FPS	267 FPS
medium	152 FPS	244 FPS
high	123 FPS	207 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	180 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	252 FPS
medium	119 FPS	206 FPS
high	97 FPS	162 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	146 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	175 FPS
medium	70 FPS	143 FPS
high	55 FPS	107 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	96 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 7 8840HX

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 7 8840HX
1080p
low	326 FPS	654 FPS
medium	318 FPS	566 FPS
high	290 FPS	427 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	367 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	554 FPS
medium	292 FPS	494 FPS
high	267 FPS	384 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	303 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	312 FPS
medium	258 FPS	283 FPS
high	235 FPS	250 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	212 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 7 8840HX

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 7 8840HX
1080p
low	326 FPS	847 FPS
medium	326 FPS	677 FPS
high	326 FPS	599 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	514 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	676 FPS
medium	326 FPS	541 FPS
high	326 FPS	468 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	397 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	483 FPS
medium	326 FPS	400 FPS
high	289 FPS	360 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	302 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 7 8840HX

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 7 8840HX
1080p
low	326 FPS	1057 FPS
medium	326 FPS	966 FPS
high	326 FPS	843 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	760 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	842 FPS
medium	326 FPS	747 FPS
high	326 FPS	652 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	566 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	619 FPS
medium	326 FPS	553 FPS
high	326 FPS	487 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	421 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 7 8840HX

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 7 8840HX

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 8840HX

The Ryzen 7 8840HX is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 23 April 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Dragon Range (2025) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 5.1 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: FL1. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 42,275 points. Launch price was $499.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Ryzen 7 8840HX offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Ryzen 7 8840HX has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5.1 GHz on the Ryzen 7 8840HX — a 17% clock advantage for the Ryzen 7 8840HX (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen 7 8840HX uses Dragon Range (2025) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen 7 8840HX's 42,275 — a 105.8% lead for the Ryzen 7 8840HX. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 64 MB (total) on the Ryzen 7 8840HX.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 7 8840HX
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	12 / 24+100%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	5.1 GHz+19%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	2.9 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	64 MB (total)+433%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	1 MB (per core)+300%
Process	14 nm	5 nm-64%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Dragon Range (2025)
PassMark	13,029	42,275+224%
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 8840HX uses FL1 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus 5600 on the Ryzen 7 8840HX — the Ryzen 7 8840HX supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i5-10400F supports up to 128 GB of RAM compared to 64 — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 28 (Ryzen 7 8840HX) — the Ryzen 7 8840HX offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and FP8,FP7 (Ryzen 7 8840HX).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 7 8840HX
Socket	LGA1200	FL1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	5600+139900%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+209715100%	64
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	28+75%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Ryzen 7 8840HX supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V (Ryzen 7 8840HX). The Ryzen 7 8840HX includes integrated graphics (AMD Radeon 780M), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Ryzen 7 8840HX rivals Core i7-13700H.