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 $1,177 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,337 MSRP).
✅Delivers 74.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 46.6 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,337 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 280W, a 215W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 42,986).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX

2020

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +58.0% higher average FPS across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 46.6 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,337 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 PRO 3975WX

2020

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,177 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,337 MSRP).
✅Delivers 74.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 46.6 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,337 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 280W, a 215W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +58.0% higher average FPS across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 42,986).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 46.6 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,337 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 PRO 3975WX better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX 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 PRO 3975WX is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 58.0% more average FPS across 6 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 PRO 3975WX is the better fit. You are getting 424.8% 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 PRO 3975WX is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is 735.6% more expensive on MSRP at $1,337 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 58.0% average FPS lead across 6 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 74.9% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 46.6 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 3D V-Cache and a much larger 128 MB L3 cache instead of 12 MB and more multi-core headroom with 32 cores / 64 threads instead of 6/12. That extra cache should hold up really well in CPU-limited games and high-refresh builds.

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 PRO 3975WX Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX
1080p
low	192 FPS	183 FPS
medium	152 FPS	149 FPS
high	123 FPS	126 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	160 FPS
medium	119 FPS	127 FPS
high	97 FPS	101 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	79 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	73 FPS
medium	70 FPS	61 FPS
high	55 FPS	48 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	40 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX
1080p
low	326 FPS	579 FPS
medium	318 FPS	499 FPS
high	290 FPS	383 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	327 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	485 FPS
medium	292 FPS	425 FPS
high	267 FPS	338 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	274 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	304 FPS
medium	258 FPS	270 FPS
high	235 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	202 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX
1080p
low	326 FPS	681 FPS
medium	326 FPS	564 FPS
high	326 FPS	497 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	425 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	570 FPS
medium	326 FPS	479 FPS
high	326 FPS	424 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	364 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	417 FPS
medium	326 FPS	333 FPS
high	289 FPS	293 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	234 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX
1080p
low	326 FPS	1020 FPS
medium	326 FPS	917 FPS
high	326 FPS	765 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	664 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	802 FPS
medium	326 FPS	701 FPS
high	326 FPS	584 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	496 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	559 FPS
medium	326 FPS	504 FPS
high	326 FPS	437 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	373 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX

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 PRO 3975WX

The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2020-07-14. It is based on the Matisse (2019−2020) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm, 12 nm process technology. Socket: sWRX8. Thermal design power (TDP): 280 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 62,261 points. Launch price was $4,499.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX has 26 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.2 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX — 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 PRO 3975WX uses Matisse (2019−2020) (7 nm, 12 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX's 62,261 — a 130.8% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 42,986 (136% advantage for the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,260, a 14.3% lead for the Core i5-10400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 25,211 (125.4% advantage for the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 128 MB on the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	32 / 64+433%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+2%	4.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.5 GHz+21%
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	62,261+378%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	42,986+425%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454+15%	1,260
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	25,211+336%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX uses sWRX8 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX supports up to 2048 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 176.5% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 8 (Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX) — the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX offers 112 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and AMD WRX80 (Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX
Socket	LGA1200	sWRX8
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-3200
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	2048 GB+1500%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	128+700%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX 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 PRO 3975WX). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX rivals Xeon W-3375.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX
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 PRO 3975WX debuted at $1337. On MSRP ($160 vs $1337), the Core i5-10400F is $1177 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 46.6 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX — making the Core i5-10400F the 54.5% better value option.