Core i5-10400F vs Ryzen 9 7940HS

Intel

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

VS
AMD

Ryzen 9 7940HS

8 Cores16 Thrd35 WWMax: 5.2 GHz2023

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

2020

Why buy it

    Trade-offs

    • Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 9 7940HS across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
    • Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 17,443).
    • Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
    • Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Ryzen 9 7940HS mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
    • 85.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 35W.

    Ryzen 9 7940HS

    2023

    Why buy it

    • Better for gaming: +76.0% higher average FPS across 7 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 FP8 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
    • 25% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

    Trade-offs

    • Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

    Quick Answers

    So, is Ryzen 9 7940HS better than Core i5-10400F?
    Yes. Ryzen 9 7940HS is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 76.0% average FPS lead across 7 shared CPU game tests in our data, 113% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, 130.1% 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 7940HS is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 76.0% more average FPS across 7 shared CPU game tests.
    Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
    For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen 9 7940HS is the better fit. You are getting 113% 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 7940HS is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Ryzen 9 7940HS is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 76.0% average FPS lead across 7 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 7940HS is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2020), a healthier platform with FP8 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.

    Path of Exile 2

    Path of Exile 2

    PresetCore i5-10400FRyzen 9 7940HS
    1080p
    low192 FPS267 FPS
    medium152 FPS242 FPS
    high123 FPS203 FPS
    ultra100 FPS176 FPS
    1440p
    low153 FPS235 FPS
    medium119 FPS193 FPS
    high97 FPS157 FPS
    ultra79 FPS139 FPS
    4K
    low82 FPS163 FPS
    medium70 FPS136 FPS
    high55 FPS105 FPS
    ultra43 FPS92 FPS
    Counter-Strike 2

    Counter-Strike 2

    PresetCore i5-10400FRyzen 9 7940HS
    1080p
    low326 FPS497 FPS
    medium318 FPS408 FPS
    high290 FPS349 FPS
    ultra253 FPS311 FPS
    1440p
    low326 FPS434 FPS
    medium292 FPS376 FPS
    high267 FPS322 FPS
    ultra234 FPS274 FPS
    4K
    low309 FPS286 FPS
    medium258 FPS259 FPS
    high235 FPS243 FPS
    ultra199 FPS209 FPS
    League of Legends

    League of Legends

    PresetCore i5-10400FRyzen 9 7940HS
    1080p
    low326 FPS750 FPS
    medium326 FPS750 FPS
    high326 FPS730 FPS
    ultra326 FPS624 FPS
    1440p
    low326 FPS750 FPS
    medium326 FPS646 FPS
    high326 FPS545 FPS
    ultra326 FPS467 FPS
    4K
    low326 FPS544 FPS
    medium326 FPS475 FPS
    high289 FPS422 FPS
    ultra229 FPS357 FPS
    Valorant

    Valorant

    PresetCore i5-10400FRyzen 9 7940HS
    1080p
    low326 FPS750 FPS
    medium326 FPS750 FPS
    high326 FPS750 FPS
    ultra326 FPS750 FPS
    1440p
    low326 FPS750 FPS
    medium326 FPS750 FPS
    high326 FPS658 FPS
    ultra326 FPS573 FPS
    4K
    low326 FPS574 FPS
    medium326 FPS511 FPS
    high326 FPS456 FPS
    ultra326 FPS394 FPS

    Technical Specifications

    Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 9 7940HS

    Intel

    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.

    AMD

    Ryzen 9 7940HS

    The Ryzen 9 7940HS is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Janeiro 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 4 GHz, with boost up to 5.2 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: FP8. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 29,986 points. Launch price was $299.

    Processing Power

    The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Ryzen 9 7940HS offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Ryzen 9 7940HS has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5.2 GHz on the Ryzen 9 7940HS — a 18.9% clock advantage for the Ryzen 9 7940HS (base: 2.9 GHz vs 4 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen 9 7940HS uses Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen 9 7940HS's 29,986 — a 78.8% lead for the Ryzen 9 7940HS. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 17,443 (72.2% advantage for the Ryzen 9 7940HS). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 2,646, a 58.1% lead for the Ryzen 9 7940HS that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 11,591 (66.9% advantage for the Ryzen 9 7940HS). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 16 MB (total) on the Ryzen 9 7940HS.

    FeatureCore i5-10400FRyzen 9 7940HS
    Cores / Threads
    6 / 12
    8 / 16+33%
    Boost Clock
    4.3 GHz
    5.2 GHz+21%
    Base Clock
    2.9 GHz
    4 GHz+38%
    L3 Cache
    12 MB (total)
    16 MB (total)+33%
    L2 Cache
    256K (per core)
    1 MB (per core)+300%
    Process
    14 nm
    4 nm-71%
    Architecture
    Comet Lake (2020−2025)
    Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023)
    PassMark
    13,029
    29,986+130%
    Cinebench R23 Multi
    8,191
    17,443+113%
    Geekbench 6 Single
    1,454
    2,646+82%
    Geekbench 6 Multi
    5,783
    11,591+100%
    🧠

    Memory & Platform

    The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Ryzen 9 7940HS uses FP8 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR5-5600 on the Ryzen 9 7940HS — the Ryzen 9 7940HS supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Ryzen 9 7940HS supports up to 256 GB of RAM compared to 128 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 7940HS) — the Ryzen 9 7940HS offers 4 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 9 7940HS).

    FeatureCore i5-10400FRyzen 9 7940HS
    Socket
    LGA1200
    FP8
    PCIe Generation
    PCIe 3.0
    PCIe 4.0+33%
    Max RAM Speed
    DDR4-2666
    DDR5-5600+25%
    Max RAM Capacity
    128 GB
    256 GB+100%
    RAM Channels
    2
    2
    ECC Support
    No
    Yes
    PCIe Lanes
    16
    20+25%
    🔧

    Advanced Features

    Only the Ryzen 9 7940HS has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the Ryzen 9 7940HS 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 7940HS). The Ryzen 9 7940HS includes integrated graphics (Radeon 780M), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Ryzen 9 7940HS targets Thin-and-light Performance. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Ryzen 9 7940HS rivals Core i9-13900H.

    FeatureCore i5-10400FRyzen 9 7940HS
    Integrated GPU
    No
    Yes
    IGPU Model
    Radeon 780M
    Unlocked
    No
    Yes
    AVX-512
    No
    Yes
    Virtualization
    VT-x, VT-d
    AMD-V
    Target Use
    Gaming
    Thin-and-light Performance