Core i5-10400F vs Ryzen Embedded V2516

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Ryzen Embedded V2516

6 Cores12 Thrd15 WWMax: 3.95 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

13,329

+2.3%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

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

✅Better for gaming: +18.1% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Costs $140 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
✅Delivers 83.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 44.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 13,329).
❌333.3% higher power demand at 65W vs 15W.

Ryzen Embedded V2516

2020

Why buy it

✅+2.3% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 15W instead of 65W, a 50W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 44.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($300 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Ryzen Embedded V2516

2020

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +18.1% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Costs $140 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
✅Delivers 83.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 44.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅+2.3% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 15W instead of 65W, a 50W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 13,329).
❌333.3% higher power demand at 65W vs 15W.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 44.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($300 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen Embedded V2516 better than Core i5-10400F?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Core i5-10400F is ahead with a 18.1% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen Embedded V2516 pulls ahead with 2.3% better PassMark. Core i5-10400F also has the bigger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen Embedded V2516 is the better fit. You are getting 2.3% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Ryzen Embedded V2516 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Ryzen Embedded V2516 is 87.5% more expensive on MSRP at $300 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you 2.3% better PassMark. The trade-off is that Core i5-10400F is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 18.1% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 83.3% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 44.4 PassMark/$), 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 Embedded V2516 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 12 threads instead of 6/12. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

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 Embedded V2516 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Embedded V2516
1080p
low	192 FPS	179 FPS
medium	152 FPS	146 FPS
high	123 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	93 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	150 FPS
medium	119 FPS	121 FPS
high	97 FPS	98 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	75 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	68 FPS
medium	70 FPS	58 FPS
high	55 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	36 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Embedded V2516

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Embedded V2516
1080p
low	326 FPS	146 FPS
medium	318 FPS	128 FPS
high	290 FPS	117 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	92 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	125 FPS
medium	292 FPS	112 FPS
high	267 FPS	104 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	85 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	108 FPS
medium	258 FPS	99 FPS
high	235 FPS	90 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	70 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Embedded V2516

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Embedded V2516
1080p
low	326 FPS	333 FPS
medium	326 FPS	333 FPS
high	326 FPS	333 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	333 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	333 FPS
medium	326 FPS	333 FPS
high	326 FPS	333 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	333 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	333 FPS
medium	326 FPS	312 FPS
high	289 FPS	276 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	219 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Embedded V2516

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Embedded V2516
1080p
low	326 FPS	333 FPS
medium	326 FPS	333 FPS
high	326 FPS	333 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	333 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	333 FPS
medium	326 FPS	333 FPS
high	326 FPS	333 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	333 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	333 FPS
medium	326 FPS	333 FPS
high	326 FPS	333 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	319 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Embedded V2516

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Ryzen Embedded V2516

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 Embedded V2516

The Ryzen Embedded V2516 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 November 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Renoir (2020−2023) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.95 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm process technology. Socket: FP6. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 13,329 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core i5-10400F and Ryzen Embedded V2516 share an identical 6-core/12-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.95 GHz on the Ryzen Embedded V2516 — a 8.5% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen Embedded V2516 uses Renoir (2020−2023) (7 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen Embedded V2516's 13,329 — a 2.3% lead for the Ryzen Embedded V2516. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 8 MB (total) on the Ryzen Embedded V2516.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Embedded V2516
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	6 / 12
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+9%	3.95 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+38%	2.1 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)+50%	8 MB (total)
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512K (per core)+100%
Process	14 nm	7 nm-50%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Renoir (2020−2023)
PassMark	13,029	13,329+2%
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 Embedded V2516 uses FP6 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Embedded V2516
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 Embedded V2516). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Embedded V2516
Integrated GPU	No	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	—
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Ryzen Embedded V2516 debuted at $300. On MSRP ($160 vs $300), the Core i5-10400F is $140 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 44.4 pts/$ for the Ryzen Embedded V2516 — making the Core i5-10400F the 58.8% better value option.