Core i5-10400F vs EPYC 8324PN

CPU

GPU

Core i5-10400F

6 Cores12 Thrd65 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2020

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 8324PN

32 Cores64 Thrd130 WWMax: 3 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-10400F

6 / 12

13,029

+55.6%

8,375

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

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

✅Better for gaming: +56.5% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 65W instead of 130W, a 65W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 8324PN.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 128 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 8324PN, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while EPYC 8324PN mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 8324PN moves to SP6 and DDR5.

EPYC 8324PN

2023

Why buy it

✅+966.7% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads.
✅Newer platform on SP6 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (8,375 vs 13,029).
❌100% higher power demand at 130W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

EPYC 8324PN

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +56.5% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 65W instead of 130W, a 65W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike EPYC 8324PN.

Why buy it

✅+966.7% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads.
✅Newer platform on SP6 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 128 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 8324PN, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while EPYC 8324PN mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while EPYC 8324PN moves to SP6 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (8,375 vs 13,029).
❌100% higher power demand at 130W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-10400F better than EPYC 8324PN?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 8324PN 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, Core i5-10400F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 56.5% more average FPS across 3 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-10400F is the better fit. You are getting 55.6% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads.

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

Core i5-10400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-10400F is at an unclear MSRP at $160 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you a 56.5% average FPS lead across 3 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

EPYC 8324PN is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2020), a healthier platform with SP6 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200, and 966.7% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 12 MB). 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

EPYC 8324PN Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 8324PN
1080p
low	192 FPS	159 FPS
medium	152 FPS	131 FPS
high	123 FPS	110 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	87 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	142 FPS
medium	119 FPS	114 FPS
high	97 FPS	90 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	72 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	68 FPS
medium	70 FPS	58 FPS
high	55 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	37 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 8324PN

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 8324PN
1080p
low	326 FPS	209 FPS
medium	318 FPS	209 FPS
high	290 FPS	174 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	138 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	194 FPS
medium	292 FPS	176 FPS
high	267 FPS	150 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	116 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	120 FPS
medium	258 FPS	111 FPS
high	235 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	79 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 8324PN

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 8324PN
1080p
low	326 FPS	209 FPS
medium	326 FPS	209 FPS
high	326 FPS	209 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	209 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	209 FPS
medium	326 FPS	209 FPS
high	326 FPS	209 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	209 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	209 FPS
medium	326 FPS	209 FPS
high	289 FPS	209 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	209 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 8324PN

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 8324PN
1080p
low	326 FPS	209 FPS
medium	326 FPS	209 FPS
high	326 FPS	209 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	209 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	209 FPS
medium	326 FPS	209 FPS
high	326 FPS	209 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	209 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	209 FPS
medium	326 FPS	209 FPS
high	326 FPS	209 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	209 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open EPYC 8324PN

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and EPYC 8324PN

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 8324PN

The EPYC 8324PN is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 18 September 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Siena (2023−2024) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.05 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: SP6. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 8,375 points. Launch price was $2,125.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 8324PN offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 8324PN has 26 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3 GHz on the EPYC 8324PN — a 35.6% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.05 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the EPYC 8324PN uses Siena (2023−2024) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the EPYC 8324PN's 8,375 — a 43.5% lead for the Core i5-10400F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 8324PN.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 8324PN
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	32 / 64+433%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+43%	3 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+41%	2.05 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	128 MB (total)+967%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	1 MB (per core)+300%
Process	14 nm	5 nm-64%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Siena (2023−2024)
PassMark	13,029+56%	8,375
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 8324PN uses SP6 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	EPYC 8324PN
Socket	LGA1200	SP6
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	—
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) / not specified (EPYC 8324PN). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.