
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

Ryzen 9 4900H
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
- ✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 9 4900H.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 9 4900H across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 18,887).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Ryzen 9 4900H mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌44.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 45W.
Ryzen 9 4900H
2020Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +27.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Draws 45W instead of 65W, a 20W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020Ryzen 9 4900H
2020Why buy it
- ✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 9 4900H.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +27.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Draws 45W instead of 65W, a 20W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 9 4900H across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 18,887).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Ryzen 9 4900H mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌44.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 45W.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Ryzen 9 4900H 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 9 4900H |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 178 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 145 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 115 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 94 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 153 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 123 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 98 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 80 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 85 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 74 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 58 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 45 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 9 4900H |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 393 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 318 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 282 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 244 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 338 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 284 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 256 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 215 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 271 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 236 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 215 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 185 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 9 4900H |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 472 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 472 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 472 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 472 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 472 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 472 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 472 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 427 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 462 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 395 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 346 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 282 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 9 4900H |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 472 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 472 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 472 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 472 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 472 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 472 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 472 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 455 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 472 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 442 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 382 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 327 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 9 4900H

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 9 4900H
Ryzen 9 4900H
The Ryzen 9 4900H is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 16 March 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Renoir-H (Zen 2) (2020) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm process technology. Socket: FP6. Thermal design power (TDP): 54 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 18,887 points. Launch price was $299.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Ryzen 9 4900H offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Ryzen 9 4900H has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.4 GHz on the Ryzen 9 4900H — a 2.3% clock advantage for the Ryzen 9 4900H (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.3 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen 9 4900H uses Renoir-H (Zen 2) (2020) (7 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen 9 4900H's 18,887 — a 36.7% lead for the Ryzen 9 4900H. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 8 MB (total) on the Ryzen 9 4900H.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 9 4900H |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 8 / 16+33% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz | 4.4 GHz+2% |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz | 3.3 GHz+14% |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total)+50% | 8 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 512 kB (per core)+100% |
| Process | 14 nm | 7 nm-50% |
| Architecture | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | Renoir-H (Zen 2) (2020) |
| PassMark | 13,029 | 18,887+45% |
| 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 9 4900H uses FP6 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 9 4900H |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | FP6 |
| 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 9 4900H). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 9 4900H |
|---|---|---|
| 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.












