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 $839 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
✅Delivers 268.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 22.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen Threadripper 1950.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 1950 across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 18,780).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1950, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Ryzen Threadripper 1950

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +22.9% higher average FPS across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅300% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 22.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($999 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Ryzen Threadripper 1950

2017

Why buy it

✅Costs $839 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
✅Delivers 268.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 22.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen Threadripper 1950.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +22.9% higher average FPS across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅300% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 1950 across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 18,780).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1950, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 22.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($999 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 1950 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Ryzen Threadripper 1950 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 1950 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 22.9% more average FPS across 6 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen Threadripper 1950 is the better fit. You are getting 129.3% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 16 cores and 32 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 1950 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Ryzen Threadripper 1950 is 524.4% more expensive on MSRP at $999 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 22.9% average FPS lead across 6 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 268.5% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 22.1 PassMark/$), 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 1950 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
1080p
low	192 FPS	173 FPS
medium	152 FPS	153 FPS
high	123 FPS	124 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	99 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	139 FPS
medium	119 FPS	117 FPS
high	97 FPS	92 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	74 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	65 FPS
medium	70 FPS	59 FPS
high	55 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	36 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1950

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
1080p
low	326 FPS	336 FPS
medium	318 FPS	304 FPS
high	290 FPS	261 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	210 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	287 FPS
medium	292 FPS	264 FPS
high	267 FPS	228 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	182 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	184 FPS
medium	258 FPS	169 FPS
high	235 FPS	147 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	115 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1950

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
1080p
low	326 FPS	552 FPS
medium	326 FPS	505 FPS
high	326 FPS	458 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	407 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	531 FPS
medium	326 FPS	439 FPS
high	326 FPS	385 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	341 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	401 FPS
medium	326 FPS	318 FPS
high	289 FPS	281 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	234 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1950

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
1080p
low	326 FPS	552 FPS
medium	326 FPS	552 FPS
high	326 FPS	552 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	487 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	552 FPS
medium	326 FPS	535 FPS
high	326 FPS	462 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	391 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	416 FPS
medium	326 FPS	382 FPS
high	326 FPS	343 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	295 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1950

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Ryzen Threadripper 1950

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 1950

The Ryzen Threadripper 1950 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 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3r2. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Quad-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 22,077 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.2 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 — a 29.3% 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 1950 uses Zen (2017−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen Threadripper 1950's 22,077 — a 51.5% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper 1950. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 18,780 (78.5% advantage for the Ryzen Threadripper 1950). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,961, a 29.7% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 10,100 (54.4% advantage for the Ryzen Threadripper 1950). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 32 MB on the Ryzen Threadripper 1950.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	16 / 32+167%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+34%	3.2 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	22,077+69%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	18,780+129%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	1,961+35%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	10,100+75%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 uses SP3r2 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. Both support up to 128 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 4 (Ryzen Threadripper 1950). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 64 (Ryzen Threadripper 1950) — the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 offers 48 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and X399 (Ryzen Threadripper 1950).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
Socket	LGA1200	SP3r2
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2666
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	128 GB
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	64+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs AMD-V (Ryzen Threadripper 1950). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Ryzen Threadripper 1950 targets Workstation. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Ryzen Threadripper 1950 rivals Core i9-7960X.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V
Target Use	Gaming	Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 debuted at $999. On MSRP ($160 vs $999), the Core i5-10400F is $839 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 22.1 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 — making the Core i5-10400F the 114.6% better value option.