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 $149 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $309 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 7 265K.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265K across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 36,309).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 30 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 190.3 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $309 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 265K moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.

Core Ultra 7 265K

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +89.1% higher average FPS across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+150% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Delivers 133.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 190.3 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($309 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
✅25% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌
93.1% HIGHER MSRP
$309 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Core Ultra 7 265K

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $149 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $309 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core Ultra 7 265K.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +89.1% higher average FPS across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+150% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Delivers 133.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 190.3 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($309 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
✅25% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265K across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 36,309).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 30 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 190.3 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $309 MSRP).
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 265K moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌
93.1% HIGHER MSRP
$309 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 7 265K better than Core i5-10400F?

Yes. Core Ultra 7 265K is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 89.1% average FPS lead across 6 shared CPU game tests in our data, 343.3% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, 351.2% higher PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core Ultra 7 265K is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 89.1% more average FPS across 6 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 7 265K is the better fit. You are getting 343.3% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 20 cores and 20 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 150% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Core Ultra 7 265K is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 7 265K is 93.1% more expensive on MSRP at $309 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 89.1% average FPS lead across 6 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 133.6% better value on MSRP (190.3 vs 81.4 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper. That said, if you already own a compatible LGA1200 + DDR4 setup, Core i5-10400F can still make sense as a platform-matched option because it avoids a motherboard and RAM swap.

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

Core Ultra 7 265K is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2020), a healthier platform with LGA1851 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200, 150% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 12 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 20 cores / 20 threads instead of 6/12. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

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

Core Ultra 7 265K Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 265K
1080p
low	192 FPS	305 FPS
medium	152 FPS	290 FPS
high	123 FPS	244 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	205 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	240 FPS
medium	119 FPS	201 FPS
high	97 FPS	163 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	142 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	158 FPS
medium	70 FPS	132 FPS
high	55 FPS	102 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	89 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 7 265K

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 265K
1080p
low	326 FPS	778 FPS
medium	318 FPS	656 FPS
high	290 FPS	548 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	491 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	673 FPS
medium	292 FPS	595 FPS
high	267 FPS	499 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	422 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	395 FPS
medium	258 FPS	357 FPS
high	235 FPS	335 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	292 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 7 265K

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 265K
1080p
low	326 FPS	851 FPS
medium	326 FPS	694 FPS
high	326 FPS	617 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	528 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	731 FPS
medium	326 FPS	599 FPS
high	326 FPS	521 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	442 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	517 FPS
medium	326 FPS	436 FPS
high	289 FPS	396 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	337 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 7 265K

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 265K
1080p
low	326 FPS	1128 FPS
medium	326 FPS	1015 FPS
high	326 FPS	889 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	808 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	892 FPS
medium	326 FPS	789 FPS
high	326 FPS	687 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	611 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	604 FPS
medium	326 FPS	542 FPS
high	326 FPS	489 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	432 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Core Ultra 7 265K

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Core Ultra 7 265K

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 7 265K

The Core Ultra 7 265K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 20 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 3.9 GHz, with boost up to 5.5 GHz. L3 cache: 30 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 58,789 points. Launch price was $394.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265K offers 20 cores / 20 threads — the Core Ultra 7 265K has 14 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5.5 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265K — a 24.5% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265K (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.9 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Core Ultra 7 265K uses Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Core Ultra 7 265K's 58,789 — a 127.4% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265K. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 36,309 (126.4% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265K). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 3,283, a 77.2% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265K that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 22,293 (117.6% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265K). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 265K.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 265K
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	20 / 20+233%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	5.5 GHz+28%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.9 GHz+34%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	30 MB (total)+150%
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	58,789+351%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	36,309+343%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	3,283+126%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	22,293+285%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core Ultra 7 265K 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 7 265K — the Core Ultra 7 265K supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core Ultra 7 265K 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 20 (Core Ultra 7 265K) — the Core Ultra 7 265K offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and LGA1851 (Core Ultra 7 265K).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 265K
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	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	20+25%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core Ultra 7 265K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the Core Ultra 7 265K supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core Ultra 7 265K includes integrated graphics (Arc Graphics 64EU), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Core Ultra 7 265K
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	Arc Graphics 64EU
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Core Ultra 7 265K debuted at $309. On MSRP ($160 vs $309), the Core i5-10400F is $149 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 190.3 pts/$ for the Core Ultra 7 265K — making the Core Ultra 7 265K the 80.1% better value option.