
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS
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 PRO 7840HS.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 26,852).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌712.5% higher power demand at 65W vs 8W.
Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS
2023Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +64.9% higher average FPS across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Draws 8W instead of 65W, a 57W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS
2023Why buy it
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +64.9% higher average FPS across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Draws 8W instead of 65W, a 57W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 26,852).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌712.5% higher power demand at 65W vs 8W.
Trade-offs
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS 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 PRO 7840HS |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 269 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 243 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 204 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 176 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 236 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 193 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 157 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 139 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 164 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 136 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 105 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 92 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 510 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 419 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 361 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 322 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 446 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 386 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 332 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 283 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 294 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 266 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 251 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 216 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 671 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 671 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 647 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 546 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 671 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 637 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 541 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 464 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 541 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 473 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 419 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 355 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 671 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 671 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 671 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 671 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 671 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 671 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 660 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 573 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 572 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 511 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 457 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 394 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS

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 PRO 7840HS
Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS
The Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 13 June 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.8 GHz, with boost up to 5.1 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB. L2 cache: 8 MB. Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: FP7/FP8. Thermal design power (TDP): 8 MB + 16 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 26,852 points. Launch price was $299.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5.1 GHz on the Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS — a 17% clock advantage for the Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.8 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS uses Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS's 26,852 — a 69.3% lead for the Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 16 MB on the Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 8 / 16+33% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz | 5.1 GHz+19% |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz | 3.8 GHz+31% |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 16 MB+33% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 8 MB+3100% |
| Process | 14 nm | 4 nm-71% |
| Architecture | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023) |
| PassMark | 13,029 | 26,852+106% |
| 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 PRO 7840HS uses FP7/FP8 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | FP7/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 PRO 7840HS). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS |
|---|---|---|
| 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.











