
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

Core Ultra 5 225
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 $80 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $240 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 5 225 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 17,020).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 20 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 129.7 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $240 MSRP).
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 225 moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.
Core Ultra 5 225
2025Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +34.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Delivers 59.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 129.7 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($240 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
- ✅50% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌50% HIGHER MSRP$240 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
Core i5-10400F
2020Core Ultra 5 225
2025Why buy it
- ✅Costs $80 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $240 MSRP).
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +34.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Delivers 59.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 129.7 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($240 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
- ✅50% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 5 225 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 17,020).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 20 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 129.7 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $240 MSRP).
- ❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 225 moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.
Trade-offs
- ❌50% HIGHER MSRP$240 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
Quick Answers
So, is Core Ultra 5 225 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 | Core Ultra 5 225 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 256 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 244 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 208 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 176 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 219 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 187 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 154 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 133 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 150 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 127 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 99 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 86 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 225 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 603 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 512 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 421 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 378 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 501 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 441 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 372 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 319 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 301 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 266 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 248 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 218 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 225 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 778 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 680 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 609 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 522 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 725 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 588 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 515 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 439 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 504 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 422 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 377 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 318 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 225 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 778 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 778 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 777 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 699 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 778 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 716 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 623 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 547 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 560 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 510 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 457 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 402 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core Ultra 5 225

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.

Core Ultra 5 225
Core Ultra 5 225
The Core Ultra 5 225 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 7 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 10 cores and 10 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 31,137 points. Launch price was $246.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 225 offers 10 cores / 10 threads — the Core Ultra 5 225 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.9 GHz on the Core Ultra 5 225 — a 13% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 5 225 (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.3 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core Ultra 5 225 uses Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core Ultra 5 225's 31,137 — a 82% lead for the Core Ultra 5 225. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 17,020 (70% advantage for the Core Ultra 5 225). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 2,653, a 58.4% lead for the Core Ultra 5 225 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 13,028 (77% advantage for the Core Ultra 5 225). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 20 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 5 225.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 225 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 10 / 10+67% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz | 4.9 GHz+14% |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz | 3.3 GHz+14% |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 20 MB (total)+67% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 3 MB (per core)+1100% |
| Process | 14 nm | 3 nm-79% |
| Architecture | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| PassMark | 13,029 | 31,137+139% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 8,191 | 17,020+108% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,454 | 2,653+82% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 5,783 | 13,028+125% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core Ultra 5 225 uses LGA1851 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 5 225 — the Core Ultra 5 225 supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core Ultra 5 225 supports up to 256 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 24 (Core Ultra 5 225) — the Core Ultra 5 225 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and Z890,B860,H810 (Core Ultra 5 225).
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 225 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | LGA1851 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 5.0+67% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2666 | DDR5-6400+25% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB | 256 GB+100% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | No |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 24+50% |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core Ultra 5 225). The Core Ultra 5 225 includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Graphics (2 Xe-cores)), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Core Ultra 5 225 targets Mainstream Desktop / Efficiency. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Core Ultra 5 225 rivals Ryzen 5 8600G.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 225 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel Arc Graphics (2 Xe-cores) |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d, EPT |
| Target Use | Gaming | Mainstream Desktop / Efficiency |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Core Ultra 5 225 debuted at $240. On MSRP ($160 vs $240), the Core i5-10400F is $80 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 129.7 pts/$ for the Core Ultra 5 225 — making the Core Ultra 5 225 the 45.8% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Core Ultra 5 225 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $160-33% | $240 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.4 | 129.7+59% |
| Release Date | 2020 | 2025 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












