Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 7303P

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7303P

16 Cores32 Thrd130 WWMax: 3.4 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

0.0%

36,487

+180.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

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 $434 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $594 MSRP).
✅Delivers 32.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 61.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $594 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 130W, a 65W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7303P.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7303P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 36,487).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7303P, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7303P

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.6% higher average FPS across 50 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 61.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($594 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌100% higher power demand at 130W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

EPYC 7303P

2023

Why buy it

✅Costs $434 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $594 MSRP).
✅Delivers 32.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 61.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $594 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 130W, a 65W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 7303P.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.6% higher average FPS across 50 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 7303P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 36,487).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7303P, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 61.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($594 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌100% higher power demand at 130W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 7303P better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7303P 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 7303P is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 12.6% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7303P is the better fit. You are getting 180% better PassMark, 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 7303P is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 7303P is 271.3% more expensive on MSRP at $594 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 12.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 32.6% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 61.4 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

EPYC 7303P is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2020), 433.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 12 MB), more multi-core headroom with 16 cores / 32 threads instead of 6/12, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

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 7303P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7303P
1080p
low	192 FPS	159 FPS
medium	152 FPS	130 FPS
high	123 FPS	109 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	86 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	141 FPS
medium	119 FPS	113 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 7303P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7303P
1080p
low	326 FPS	390 FPS
medium	318 FPS	346 FPS
high	290 FPS	283 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	225 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	329 FPS
medium	292 FPS	297 FPS
high	267 FPS	251 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	192 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	203 FPS
medium	258 FPS	186 FPS
high	235 FPS	158 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	127 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7303P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7303P
1080p
low	326 FPS	644 FPS
medium	326 FPS	526 FPS
high	326 FPS	469 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	411 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	499 FPS
medium	326 FPS	406 FPS
high	326 FPS	356 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	310 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	368 FPS
medium	326 FPS	286 FPS
high	289 FPS	244 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	197 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7303P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7303P
1080p
low	326 FPS	885 FPS
medium	326 FPS	806 FPS
high	326 FPS	696 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	610 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	696 FPS
medium	326 FPS	608 FPS
high	326 FPS	521 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	446 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	498 FPS
medium	326 FPS	445 FPS
high	326 FPS	390 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	337 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 7303P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 7303P

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 7303P

The EPYC 7303P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 5 September 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 36,487 points. Launch price was $594.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 7303P offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the EPYC 7303P has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.4 GHz on the EPYC 7303P — a 23.4% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 7303P uses Milan (2021−2023) (7 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 7303P's 36,487 — a 94.7% lead for the EPYC 7303P. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 7303P.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7303P
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	16 / 32+167%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+26%	3.4 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+21%	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	64 MB (total)+433%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512 kB (per core)+100%
Process	14 nm	7 nm-50%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Milan (2021−2023)
PassMark	13,029	36,487+180%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 7303P uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus 3200 on the EPYC 7303P — the EPYC 7303P supports 199.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7303P supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 128 GB — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 8 (EPYC 7303P). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (EPYC 7303P) — the EPYC 7303P 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 (EPYC 7303P).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7303P
Socket	LGA1200	SP3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	3200+79900%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+3276700%	4096
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	128+700%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the EPYC 7303P supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs AMD-V, IOMMU (EPYC 7303P). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; EPYC 7303P rivals Xeon Gold 6330.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 7303P
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V, IOMMU
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the EPYC 7303P debuted at $594. On MSRP ($160 vs $594), the Core i5-10400F is $434 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 61.4 pts/$ for the EPYC 7303P — making the Core i5-10400F the 28% better value option.