
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

Ryzen 9 7900X
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
- ✅Costs $389 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 170W, a 105W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 9 7900X.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 9 7900X across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 29,557).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 93.5 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Ryzen 9 7900X moves to AM5 and DDR5.
Ryzen 9 7900X
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +75.8% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Delivers 14.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 93.5 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($549 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ✅Newer platform on AM5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
- ✅75% more PCIe lanes (28 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌243.1% HIGHER MSRP$549 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
- ❌161.5% higher power demand at 170W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020Ryzen 9 7900X
2022Why buy it
- ✅Costs $389 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 170W, a 105W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 9 7900X.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +75.8% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Delivers 14.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 93.5 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($549 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ✅Newer platform on AM5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
- ✅75% more PCIe lanes (28 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 9 7900X across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 29,557).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 93.5 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Ryzen 9 7900X moves to AM5 and DDR5.
Trade-offs
- ❌243.1% HIGHER MSRP$549 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
- ❌161.5% higher power demand at 170W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Ryzen 9 7900X 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 7900X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 292 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 266 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 218 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 190 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 272 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 223 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 171 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 153 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 188 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 155 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 115 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 103 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 9 7900X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 865 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 710 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 562 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 483 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 715 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 609 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 494 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 392 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 399 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 344 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 317 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 272 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 9 7900X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 730 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 580 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 499 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 400 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 639 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 519 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 444 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 364 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 452 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 386 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 344 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 279 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 9 7900X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 1030 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 900 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 783 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 698 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 847 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 731 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 636 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 553 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 624 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 549 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 483 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 418 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 9 7900X

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 7900X
Ryzen 9 7900X
The Ryzen 9 7900X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2022-09-27. It is based on the Raphael (Zen4) (2022−2023) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 4.7 GHz, with boost up to 5.6 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: AM5. Thermal design power (TDP): 170 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-5200. Passmark benchmark score: 51,329 points. Launch price was $549.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Ryzen 9 7900X offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Ryzen 9 7900X has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5.6 GHz on the Ryzen 9 7900X — a 26.3% clock advantage for the Ryzen 9 7900X (base: 2.9 GHz vs 4.7 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen 9 7900X uses Raphael (Zen4) (2022−2023) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen 9 7900X's 51,329 — a 119% lead for the Ryzen 9 7900X. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 29,557 (113.2% advantage for the Ryzen 9 7900X). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 64 MB (total) on the Ryzen 9 7900X.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 9 7900X |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 12 / 24+100% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz | 5.6 GHz+30% |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz | 4.7 GHz+62% |
| 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) | Raphael (Zen4) (2022−2023) |
| PassMark | 13,029 | 51,329+294% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 8,191 | 29,557+261% |
| 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 7900X uses AM5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR5-5200 on the Ryzen 9 7900X — the Ryzen 9 7900X supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 128 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 28 (Ryzen 9 7900X) — the Ryzen 9 7900X offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and AM5 (Ryzen 9 7900X).
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 9 7900X |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | AM5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 5.0+67% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2666 | DDR5-5200+25% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB | 128 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 28+75% |
Advanced Features
Only the Ryzen 9 7900X has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the Ryzen 9 7900X supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs AMD-V (Ryzen 9 7900X). The Ryzen 9 7900X includes integrated graphics (Radeon Graphics), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Ryzen 9 7900X targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Ryzen 9 7900X rivals Core i9-13900K.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 9 7900X |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Radeon Graphics |
| Unlocked | No | Yes |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | AMD-V |
| Target Use | Gaming | Gaming |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Ryzen 9 7900X debuted at $549. On MSRP ($160 vs $549), the Core i5-10400F is $389 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 93.5 pts/$ for the Ryzen 9 7900X — making the Ryzen 9 7900X the 13.8% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 9 7900X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $160-71% | $549 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.4 | 93.5+15% |
| Release Date | 2020 | 2022 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.











