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

✅Costs $639 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Delivers 194.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 27.6 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 140W, a 75W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen Threadripper 1920.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 1920 across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 22,066).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1920, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads.

Ryzen Threadripper 1920

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +30.6% higher average FPS across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 12 cores / 24 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 27.6 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($799 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌115.4% higher power demand at 140W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Ryzen Threadripper 1920

2017

Why buy it

✅Costs $639 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Delivers 194.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 27.6 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 140W, a 75W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen Threadripper 1920.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +30.6% higher average FPS across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 12 cores / 24 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 1920 across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 22,066).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1920, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 27.6 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($799 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌115.4% higher power demand at 140W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen Threadripper 1920 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Ryzen Threadripper 1920 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-10400F is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Ryzen Threadripper 1920 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 30.6% 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 Threadripper 1920 is the better fit. You are getting 69.4% better PassMark, backed by 12 cores and 24 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Ryzen Threadripper 1920 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Ryzen Threadripper 1920 is 399.4% more expensive on MSRP at $799 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 30.6% average FPS lead across 7 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 194.9% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 27.6 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Core i5-10400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2017). That makes it the safer long-term pick.

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 Threadripper 1920 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
1080p
low	192 FPS	175 FPS
medium	152 FPS	156 FPS
high	123 FPS	129 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	105 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	143 FPS
medium	119 FPS	121 FPS
high	97 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	65 FPS
medium	70 FPS	59 FPS
high	55 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	37 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1920

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
1080p
low	326 FPS	398 FPS
medium	318 FPS	357 FPS
high	290 FPS	304 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	252 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	339 FPS
medium	292 FPS	309 FPS
high	267 FPS	265 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	219 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	217 FPS
medium	258 FPS	197 FPS
high	235 FPS	179 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	145 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1920

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
1080p
low	326 FPS	552 FPS
medium	326 FPS	539 FPS
high	326 FPS	501 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	442 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	552 FPS
medium	326 FPS	464 FPS
high	326 FPS	418 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	367 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	420 FPS
medium	326 FPS	334 FPS
high	289 FPS	303 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	252 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1920

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
1080p
low	326 FPS	552 FPS
medium	326 FPS	552 FPS
high	326 FPS	552 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	528 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	552 FPS
medium	326 FPS	552 FPS
high	326 FPS	493 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	423 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	444 FPS
medium	326 FPS	408 FPS
high	326 FPS	367 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	318 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1920

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Ryzen Threadripper 1920

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 Threadripper 1920

The Ryzen Threadripper 1920 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 July 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Zen (2017−2020) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3r2. Thermal design power (TDP): 140 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Quad-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 22,066 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.8 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 — a 12.3% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 uses Zen (2017−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen Threadripper 1920's 22,066 — a 51.5% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper 1920. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 32 MB on the Ryzen Threadripper 1920.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	12 / 24+100%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+13%	3.8 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.2 GHz+10%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	32 MB+167%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512 kB (per core)+100%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Zen (2017−2020)
PassMark	13,029	22,066+69%
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 Threadripper 1920 uses SP3r2 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
Socket	LGA1200	SP3r2
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
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 Threadripper 1920). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
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 Threadripper 1920 debuted at $799. On MSRP ($160 vs $799), the Core i5-10400F is $639 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 27.6 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 — making the Core i5-10400F the 98.7% better value option.