Core i5-10400F vs Ryzen Threadripper 1920X

Core i5-10400F vs Ryzen Threadripper 1920X Performance Spectrum

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 1920X

12 / 24

23,150

+77.7%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

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.

Core i5-10400F vs Ryzen Threadripper 1920X FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core i5-10400F vs Ryzen Threadripper 1920X: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Why buy it

✅Costs $639 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Delivers 181.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 29.0 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen Threadripper 1920X.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 1920X across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 23,150).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1920X, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads.

Ryzen Threadripper 1920X

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +33.1% higher average FPS across 50 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 29.0 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($799 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

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

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Ryzen Threadripper 1920X makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-10400F is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 33.1% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is the stronger fit. You are getting 77.7% better PassMark, backed by 12 cores and 24 threads. It also has 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 1920X is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Ryzen Threadripper 1920X comes in 399.4% more expensive on MSRP at $799 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it still gives you a 33.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 181.1% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 29.0 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

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

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

Core i5-10400F vs Ryzen Threadripper 1920X Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

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 1920X

The Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 August 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Zen (2017−2020) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3r2. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Quad-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 23,150 points. Launch price was $799.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920X offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.2 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 1920X — a 2.4% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920X uses Zen (2017−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen Threadripper 1920X's 23,150 — a 55.9% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper 1920X. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 32 MB on the Ryzen Threadripper 1920X.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920X
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	12 / 24+100%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+2%	4.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.5 GHz+21%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	32 MB+167%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512K (per core)+100%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Zen (2017−2020)
PassMark	13,029	23,150+78%
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 1920X uses SP3r2 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920X
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 1920X). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920X
Integrated GPU	No	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	—
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i5-10400F was priced at $160, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920X came in at $799. On launch pricing ($160 vs $799), Core i5-10400F was $639 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 29.0 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper 1920X — making the Core i5-10400F the 95% better value option.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920X
MSRP	$160-80%	$799
Performance per Dollar	81.4+181%	29.0
Release Date	2020	2017

Search Core i5-10400F on Amazon

Search Ryzen Threadripper 1920X on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.