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 $4,331 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $4,491 MSRP).
✅Delivers 481.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 14.0 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $4,491 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 280W, a 215W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen Threadripper 3970X.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 3970X across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 44,510).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 3970X, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +121.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 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 14.0 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($4,491 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌330.8% higher power demand at 280W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $4,331 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $4,491 MSRP).
✅Delivers 481.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 14.0 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $4,491 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 280W, a 215W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen Threadripper 3970X.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +121.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 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 3970X across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 44,510).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 3970X, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.0 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($4,491 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌330.8% higher power demand at 280W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen Threadripper 3970X better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Ryzen Threadripper 3970X 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 3970X is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 121.7% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 128 MB vs 12 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is the better fit. You are getting 443.4% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 966.7% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is 2706.9% more expensive on MSRP at $4,491 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 121.7% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 481.0% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 14.0 PassMark/$), 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 2019). 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 3970X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 3970X
1080p
low	192 FPS	270 FPS
medium	152 FPS	222 FPS
high	123 FPS	183 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	131 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	211 FPS
medium	119 FPS	164 FPS
high	97 FPS	130 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	96 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	98 FPS
medium	70 FPS	81 FPS
high	55 FPS	63 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	51 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 3970X
1080p
low	326 FPS	806 FPS
medium	318 FPS	681 FPS
high	290 FPS	528 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	457 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	652 FPS
medium	292 FPS	565 FPS
high	267 FPS	458 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	373 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	381 FPS
medium	258 FPS	333 FPS
high	235 FPS	296 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	261 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 3970X
1080p
low	326 FPS	1025 FPS
medium	326 FPS	927 FPS
high	326 FPS	862 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	765 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	776 FPS
medium	326 FPS	644 FPS
high	326 FPS	580 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	506 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	539 FPS
medium	326 FPS	428 FPS
high	289 FPS	381 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	306 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 3970X
1080p
low	326 FPS	1325 FPS
medium	326 FPS	1015 FPS
high	326 FPS	1073 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	875 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	1031 FPS
medium	326 FPS	900 FPS
high	326 FPS	778 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	656 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	744 FPS
medium	326 FPS	662 FPS
high	326 FPS	579 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

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 3970X

The Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 25 November 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Matisse (2019−2020) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 4.5 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm, 12 nm process technology. Socket: TR4. Thermal design power (TDP): 280 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 62,946 points. Launch price was $1,999.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X has 26 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.5 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X — a 4.5% clock advantage for the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.7 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X uses Matisse (2019−2020) (7 nm, 12 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X's 62,946 — a 131.4% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 44,510 (137.8% advantage for the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,664, a 13.5% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 13,739 (81.5% advantage for the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 128 MB on the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 3970X
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	32 / 64+433%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	4.5 GHz+5%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.7 GHz+28%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	128 MB+967%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512K (per core)+100%
Process	14 nm	7 nm, 12 nm-50%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Matisse (2019−2020)
PassMark	13,029	62,946+383%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	44,510+443%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	1,664+14%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	13,739+138%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X uses TR4 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. The Ryzen Threadripper 3970X supports up to 256 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 4 (Ryzen Threadripper 3970X). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 64 (Ryzen Threadripper 3970X) — the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X offers 48 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and TRX40 (Ryzen Threadripper 3970X).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 3970X
Socket	LGA1200	TR4
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-3200
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	256 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	64+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs true (Ryzen Threadripper 3970X). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Ryzen Threadripper 3970X rivals Core i9-10980XE.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 3970X
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	true
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X debuted at $4491. On MSRP ($160 vs $4491), the Core i5-10400F is $4331 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 14.0 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X — making the Core i5-10400F the 141.3% better value option.