
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
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
2020Why buy it
- ✅Costs $3,939 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $4,099 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 214.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 25.9 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $4,099 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 350W, a 285W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 83,982).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX moves to sTR5 and DDR5.
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX
2025Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +93.8% higher average FPS across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅Newer platform on sTR5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 25.9 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($4,099 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌438.5% higher power demand at 350W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX
2025Why buy it
- ✅Costs $3,939 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $4,099 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 214.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 25.9 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $4,099 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 350W, a 285W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +93.8% higher average FPS across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅Newer platform on sTR5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
- ✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 83,982).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX moves to sTR5 and DDR5.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 25.9 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($4,099 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌438.5% higher power demand at 350W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX better than Core i5-10400F?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 314 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 289 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 240 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 203 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 278 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 231 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 178 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 158 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 191 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 158 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 121 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 107 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 818 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 697 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 542 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 472 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 674 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 599 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 480 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 388 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 377 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 339 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 310 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 271 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 891 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 723 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 649 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 552 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 714 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 580 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 508 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 427 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 508 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 419 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 375 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 311 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 1116 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 1002 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 879 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 792 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 872 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 768 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 674 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 587 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 636 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 568 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 504 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 437 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Core i5-10400F
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 9975WX
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX
The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 23 July 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Shimada Peak (2025) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 4 GHz, with boost up to 5.4 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: sTR5. Thermal design power (TDP): 350 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 106,263 points. Launch price was $4,099.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX has 26 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5.4 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX — a 22.7% clock advantage for the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX (base: 2.9 GHz vs 4 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX uses Shimada Peak (2025) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX's 106,263 — a 156.3% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 83,982 (164.5% advantage for the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 3,200, a 75% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 31,000 (137.1% advantage for the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 128 MB (total) on the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 32 / 64+433% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz | 5.4 GHz+26% |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz | 4 GHz+38% |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 128 MB (total)+967% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 1 MB (per core)+300% |
| Process | 14 nm | 4 nm-71% |
| Architecture | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | Shimada Peak (2025) |
| PassMark | 13,029 | 106,263+716% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 8,191 | 83,982+925% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,454 | 3,200+120% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 5,783 | 31,000+436% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX uses sTR5 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR5-6400 on the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX — the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX 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 9975WX). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX) — the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX offers 112 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and WRX90,TRX50 (Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX).
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | sTR5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 4.0+33% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2666 | DDR5-6400+25% |
| 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 9975WX supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs true (Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX targets High-end Workstation. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX rivals Xeon w7-3465X.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | true |
| Target Use | Gaming | High-end Workstation |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX debuted at $4099. On MSRP ($160 vs $4099), the Core i5-10400F is $3939 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 25.9 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX — making the Core i5-10400F the 103.4% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $160-96% | $4099 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.4+214% | 25.9 |
| Release Date | 2020 | 2025 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.











