
A12-9800
Popular choices:

Core i5-10400F
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.
A12-9800
2017Why buy it
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon R7, while Core i5-10400F needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (3,695 vs 13,029).
Core i5-10400F
2020Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +131.5% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅100% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while A12-9800 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while A12-9800 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
A12-9800
2017Core i5-10400F
2020Why buy it
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon R7, while Core i5-10400F needs a discrete GPU.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +131.5% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅100% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (3,695 vs 13,029).
Trade-offs
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while A12-9800 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while A12-9800 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i5-10400F better than A12-9800?
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 | A12-9800 | Core i5-10400F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 92 FPS | 192 FPS |
| medium | 92 FPS | 152 FPS |
| high | 92 FPS | 123 FPS |
| ultra | 92 FPS | 100 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 92 FPS | 153 FPS |
| medium | 92 FPS | 119 FPS |
| high | 92 FPS | 97 FPS |
| ultra | 76 FPS | 79 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 65 FPS | 82 FPS |
| medium | 58 FPS | 70 FPS |
| high | 45 FPS | 55 FPS |
| ultra | 36 FPS | 43 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | A12-9800 | Core i5-10400F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| medium | 92 FPS | 318 FPS |
| high | 92 FPS | 290 FPS |
| ultra | 92 FPS | 253 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| medium | 92 FPS | 292 FPS |
| high | 92 FPS | 267 FPS |
| ultra | 92 FPS | 234 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 92 FPS | 309 FPS |
| medium | 92 FPS | 258 FPS |
| high | 92 FPS | 235 FPS |
| ultra | 92 FPS | 199 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | A12-9800 | Core i5-10400F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| medium | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| high | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| ultra | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| medium | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| high | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| ultra | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| medium | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| high | 92 FPS | 289 FPS |
| ultra | 92 FPS | 229 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | A12-9800 | Core i5-10400F |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| medium | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| high | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| ultra | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| medium | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| high | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| ultra | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| medium | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| high | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
| ultra | 92 FPS | 326 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of A12-9800 and Core i5-10400F

A12-9800
A12-9800
The A12-9800 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 27 July 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.8 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 3,695 points. Launch price was $139.

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.
Processing Power
The A12-9800 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core i5-10400F offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Core i5-10400F has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.2 GHz on the A12-9800 versus 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F — a 2.4% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 3.8 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The A12-9800 uses the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Core i5-10400F uses Comet Lake (2020−2025) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A12-9800 scores 3,695 against the Core i5-10400F's 13,029 — a 111.6% lead for the Core i5-10400F. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 635 vs 1,454, a 78.4% lead for the Core i5-10400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A12-9800 vs 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F.
| Feature | A12-9800 | Core i5-10400F |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 4 / 4 | 6 / 12+50% |
| Boost Clock | 4.2 GHz | 4.3 GHz+2% |
| Base Clock | 3.8 GHz+31% | 2.9 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 12 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 2048 kB+700% | 256K (per core) |
| Process | 28 nm | 14 nm-50% |
| Architecture | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) | Comet Lake (2020−2025) |
| PassMark | 3,695 | 13,029+253% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | — | 8,191 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 635 | 1,454+129% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 5,783 |
Memory & Platform
The A12-9800 uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i5-10400F uses LGA1200 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2400 memory speed. The Core i5-10400F supports up to 128 GB of RAM compared to 64 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 8 (A12-9800) vs 16 (Core i5-10400F) — the Core i5-10400F offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: A320,B350,X370 (A12-9800) and H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F).
| Feature | A12-9800 | Core i5-10400F |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM4 | LGA1200 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2400 | DDR4-2666 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 64 GB | 128 GB+100% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | No |
| PCIe Lanes | 8 | 16+100% |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A12-9800) vs VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F). The A12-9800 includes integrated graphics (Radeon R7), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A12-9800 targets Budget, Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: A12-9800 rivals Pentium G4600; Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.
| Feature | A12-9800 | Core i5-10400F |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Radeon R7 | — |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | Budget | Gaming |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













