
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS
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
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 14,670).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌85.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 35W.
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +74.5% higher average FPS across 2 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
2020Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS
2022Why buy it
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +74.5% higher average FPS across 2 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 PRO 6950HS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 14,670).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 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 PRO 6950HS 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 PRO 6950HS |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 570 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 564 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 485 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 388 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 570 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 |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 570 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 570 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 570 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 570 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 570 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 570 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 570 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 |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS

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 PRO 6950HS
Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS
The Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 19 April 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Rembrandt-HS (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: 22,781 points. Launch price was $299.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.9 GHz on the Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS — a 13% clock advantage for the Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS (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 PRO 6950HS uses Rembrandt-HS (Zen 3+) (2022) (6 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS's 22,781 — a 54.5% lead for the Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 14,670 (56.7% advantage for the Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,903, a 26.8% lead for the Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 10,609 (58.9% advantage for the Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 16 MB (total) on the Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS |
|---|---|---|
| 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-HS (Zen 3+) (2022) |
| PassMark | 13,029 | 22,781+75% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 8,191 | 14,670+79% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,454 | 1,903+31% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 5,783 | 10,609+83% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 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 PRO 6950HS — the Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 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 PRO 6950HS) — the Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS 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 PRO 6950HS).
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS |
|---|---|---|
| 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
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs Yes (Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS). The Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS includes integrated graphics (Radeon 680M), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS targets Mobile. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Radeon 680M |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | Yes |
| Target Use | Gaming | Mobile |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.











