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 9 6900HS.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 9 6900HS across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 13,445).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Ryzen 9 6900HS mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌85.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 35W.

Ryzen 9 6900HS

2022

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +43.7% higher average FPS across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Draws 35W instead of 65W, a 30W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FP7 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
✅25% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

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

Core i5-10400F

2020

Ryzen 9 6900HS

2022

Why buy it

✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 9 6900HS.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +43.7% higher average FPS across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Draws 35W instead of 65W, a 30W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FP7 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
✅25% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 9 6900HS across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 13,445).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Ryzen 9 6900HS mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌85.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 35W.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 9 6900HS better than Core i5-10400F?

Yes. Ryzen 9 6900HS is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 43.7% average FPS lead across 5 shared CPU game tests in our data, 64.1% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, 76.8% higher 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 9 6900HS is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 43.7% more average FPS across 5 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen 9 6900HS is the better fit. You are getting 64.1% 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 9 6900HS is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Ryzen 9 6900HS is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 43.7% average FPS lead across 5 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Ryzen 9 6900HS is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2022 vs 2020), a healthier platform with FP7 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200, 33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 16 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 9 6900HS Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 9 6900HS
1080p
low	192 FPS	251 FPS
medium	152 FPS	234 FPS
high	123 FPS	197 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	169 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	220 FPS
medium	119 FPS	186 FPS
high	97 FPS	152 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	133 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	154 FPS
medium	70 FPS	131 FPS
high	55 FPS	101 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	89 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 9 6900HS

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 9 6900HS
1080p
low	326 FPS	441 FPS
medium	318 FPS	370 FPS
high	290 FPS	322 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	287 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	370 FPS
medium	292 FPS	323 FPS
high	267 FPS	288 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	247 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	255 FPS
medium	258 FPS	229 FPS
high	235 FPS	215 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	186 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 9 6900HS

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 9 6900HS
1080p
low	326 FPS	576 FPS
medium	326 FPS	564 FPS
high	326 FPS	485 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	388 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	576 FPS
medium	326 FPS	510 FPS
high	326 FPS	437 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	355 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	432 FPS
medium	326 FPS	368 FPS
high	289 FPS	323 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	262 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 9 6900HS

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 9 6900HS
1080p
low	326 FPS	576 FPS
medium	326 FPS	576 FPS
high	326 FPS	576 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	576 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	576 FPS
medium	326 FPS	576 FPS
high	326 FPS	576 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	513 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	536 FPS
medium	326 FPS	489 FPS
high	326 FPS	438 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	379 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 9 6900HS

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 9 6900HS

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 6900HS

The Ryzen 9 6900HS is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Janeiro 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Rembrandt-H (Zen 3+) (2022) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 6 nm process technology. Socket: FP7. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 23,040 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Ryzen 9 6900HS offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Ryzen 9 6900HS has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.9 GHz on the Ryzen 9 6900HS — a 13% clock advantage for the Ryzen 9 6900HS (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 6900HS uses Rembrandt-H (Zen 3+) (2022) (6 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen 9 6900HS's 23,040 — a 55.5% lead for the Ryzen 9 6900HS. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 13,445 (48.6% advantage for the Ryzen 9 6900HS). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,854, a 24.2% lead for the Ryzen 9 6900HS that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 8,732 (40.6% advantage for the Ryzen 9 6900HS). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 16 MB (total) on the Ryzen 9 6900HS.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 9 6900HS
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 16+33%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	4.9 GHz+14%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.3 GHz+14%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	16 MB (total)+33%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512K (per core)+100%
Process	14 nm	6 nm-57%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Rembrandt-H (Zen 3+) (2022)
PassMark	13,029	23,040+77%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	13,445+64%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	1,854+28%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	8,732+51%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Ryzen 9 6900HS uses FP7 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR5-4800 on the Ryzen 9 6900HS — the Ryzen 9 6900HS supports 22.2% 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 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 20 (Ryzen 9 6900HS) — the Ryzen 9 6900HS offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and FP7 (Ryzen 9 6900HS).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 9 6900HS
Socket	LGA1200	FP7
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR5-4800+25%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+100%	64 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	20+25%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Ryzen 9 6900HS 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 9 6900HS). The Ryzen 9 6900HS includes integrated graphics (Radeon 680M), 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.