Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7282

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7282

16 Cores32 Thrd120 WWMax: 3.2 GHz2019

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

30,201

+131.8%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX

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

2020

Why buy it

✅Costs $490 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $650 MSRP).
✅Delivers 75.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 46.5 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $650 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 120W, a 55W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7282.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7282 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 13,500).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7282, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7282

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +30.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 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 46.5 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($650 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌84.6% higher power demand at 120W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

EPYC 7282

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $490 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $650 MSRP).
✅Delivers 75.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 46.5 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $650 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 120W, a 55W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7282.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +30.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 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 EPYC 7282 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 13,500).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7282, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 46.5 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($650 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌84.6% higher power demand at 120W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 7282 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7282 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, EPYC 7282 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 30.7% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7282 is the better fit. You are getting 64.8% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB).

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

EPYC 7282 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 7282 is 306.3% more expensive on MSRP at $650 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 30.7% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 75.3% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 46.5 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Core i5-10400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2019). That makes it the safer long-term pick.

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

EPYC 7282 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7282
1080p
low	192 FPS	159 FPS
medium	152 FPS	129 FPS
high	123 FPS	108 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	86 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	140 FPS
medium	119 FPS	112 FPS
high	97 FPS	89 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	71 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	68 FPS
medium	70 FPS	57 FPS
high	55 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	37 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7282

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7282
1080p
low	326 FPS	419 FPS
medium	318 FPS	371 FPS
high	290 FPS	305 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	245 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	353 FPS
medium	292 FPS	319 FPS
high	267 FPS	270 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	208 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	219 FPS
medium	258 FPS	201 FPS
high	235 FPS	171 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	138 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7282

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7282
1080p
low	326 FPS	632 FPS
medium	326 FPS	514 FPS
high	326 FPS	458 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	402 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	493 FPS
medium	326 FPS	400 FPS
high	326 FPS	351 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	305 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	367 FPS
medium	326 FPS	285 FPS
high	289 FPS	243 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	197 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7282

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7282
1080p
low	326 FPS	755 FPS
medium	326 FPS	755 FPS
high	326 FPS	664 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	581 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	663 FPS
medium	326 FPS	584 FPS
high	326 FPS	501 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	427 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	475 FPS
medium	326 FPS	428 FPS
high	326 FPS	376 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	323 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7282

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 7282

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.

EPYC 7282

The EPYC 7282 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 7 August 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB. L2 cache: 8 MB. Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 120 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 30,201 points. Launch price was $650.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 7282 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the EPYC 7282 has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.2 GHz on the EPYC 7282 — a 29.3% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 7282 uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 7282's 30,201 — a 79.4% lead for the EPYC 7282. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 13,500 (49% advantage for the EPYC 7282). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,086, a 29% lead for the Core i5-10400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 7,638 (27.6% advantage for the EPYC 7282). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 64 MB on the EPYC 7282.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7282
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	16 / 32+167%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+34%	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+4%	2.8 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	64 MB+433%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	8 MB+3100%
Process	14 nm	7 nm, 14 nm-50%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Zen 2 (2017−2020)
PassMark	13,029	30,201+132%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	13,500+65%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454+34%	1,086
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	7,638+32%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 7282 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. The EPYC 7282 supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 8 (EPYC 7282). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 7282) — the EPYC 7282 offers 112 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and SP3,Rome (EPYC 7282).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7282
Socket	LGA1200	SP3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-3200
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	4096 GB+3100%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	128+700%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs AMD-V, SEV (EPYC 7282). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, EPYC 7282 targets Edge Server / Entry Server. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 7282 rivals Xeon Silver 4216.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7282
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V, SEV
Target Use	Gaming	Edge Server / Entry Server

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the EPYC 7282 debuted at $650. On MSRP ($160 vs $650), the Core i5-10400F is $490 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 46.5 pts/$ for the EPYC 7282 — making the Core i5-10400F the 54.7% better value option.