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 i9-10900F

2020

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +19.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+25% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 16 MB).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 5 8640HS.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (19,800 vs 19,851).
❌Launch MSRP is still $464 MSRP, while Ryzen 5 8640HS mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌132.1% higher power demand at 65W vs 28W.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Ryzen 5 8640HS moves to FP8 and DDR5.

Ryzen 5 8640HS

2023

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 28W instead of 65W, a 37W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FP8 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-10900F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 20 MB).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i9-10900F.

Core i9-10900F

2020

Ryzen 5 8640HS

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +19.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+25% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 16 MB).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 5 8640HS.

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 28W instead of 65W, a 37W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FP8 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (19,800 vs 19,851).
❌Launch MSRP is still $464 MSRP, while Ryzen 5 8640HS mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌132.1% higher power demand at 65W vs 28W.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Ryzen 5 8640HS moves to FP8 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i9-10900F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 20 MB).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i9-10900F.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 5 8640HS better than Core i9-10900F?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Core i9-10900F is ahead with a 19.6% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen 5 8640HS pulls ahead with 0.3% better PassMark. Core i9-10900F also has the bigger cache pool with 25% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 16 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen 5 8640HS is the better fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads.

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

Ryzen 5 8640HS is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i9-10900F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Ryzen 5 8640HS is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $464 MSRP, and it gives you 0.3% better PassMark. The trade-off is that Core i9-10900F is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 19.6% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i9-10900F is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (42.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Ryzen 5 8640HS is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2020), a healthier platform with FP8 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200, and more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 12 threads instead of 10/20. 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 i9-10900F Benchmark Check

Ryzen 5 8640HS Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i9-10900F	Ryzen 5 8640HS
1080p
low	292 FPS	261 FPS
medium	259 FPS	237 FPS
high	219 FPS	199 FPS
ultra	188 FPS	171 FPS
1440p
low	239 FPS	230 FPS
medium	191 FPS	190 FPS
high	157 FPS	155 FPS
ultra	138 FPS	137 FPS
4K
low	166 FPS	159 FPS
medium	135 FPS	133 FPS
high	104 FPS	103 FPS
ultra	91 FPS	91 FPS

Open Core i9-10900F Open Ryzen 5 8640HS

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i9-10900F	Ryzen 5 8640HS
1080p
low	495 FPS	371 FPS
medium	495 FPS	309 FPS
high	495 FPS	272 FPS
ultra	495 FPS	236 FPS
1440p
low	495 FPS	313 FPS
medium	495 FPS	270 FPS
high	495 FPS	244 FPS
ultra	452 FPS	207 FPS
4K
low	458 FPS	234 FPS
medium	385 FPS	206 FPS
high	360 FPS	191 FPS
ultra	310 FPS	161 FPS

Open Core i9-10900F Open Ryzen 5 8640HS

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i9-10900F	Ryzen 5 8640HS
1080p
low	495 FPS	496 FPS
medium	495 FPS	496 FPS
high	495 FPS	496 FPS
ultra	495 FPS	496 FPS
1440p
low	495 FPS	496 FPS
medium	495 FPS	496 FPS
high	495 FPS	496 FPS
ultra	461 FPS	443 FPS
4K
low	495 FPS	493 FPS
medium	465 FPS	435 FPS
high	417 FPS	372 FPS
ultra	351 FPS	308 FPS

Open Core i9-10900F Open Ryzen 5 8640HS

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i9-10900F	Ryzen 5 8640HS
1080p
low	495 FPS	496 FPS
medium	495 FPS	496 FPS
high	495 FPS	496 FPS
ultra	495 FPS	496 FPS
1440p
low	495 FPS	496 FPS
medium	495 FPS	496 FPS
high	495 FPS	496 FPS
ultra	495 FPS	496 FPS
4K
low	495 FPS	496 FPS
medium	495 FPS	496 FPS
high	495 FPS	442 FPS
ultra	436 FPS	380 FPS

Open Core i9-10900F Open Ryzen 5 8640HS

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i9-10900F and Ryzen 5 8640HS

Core i9-10900F

The Core i9-10900F 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 10 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 5.1 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1200. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 19,800 points. Launch price was $299.

Ryzen 5 8640HS

The Ryzen 5 8640HS is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 6 December 2023 (1 year ago). It is based on the Hawk Point-HS (Zen 4) (2023−2024) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: FP8. Thermal design power (TDP): 28 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 19,851 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i9-10900F packs 10 cores / 20 threads, while the Ryzen 5 8640HS offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Core i9-10900F has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.1 GHz on the Core i9-10900F versus 4.9 GHz on the Ryzen 5 8640HS — a 4% clock advantage for the Core i9-10900F (base: 2.8 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Core i9-10900F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen 5 8640HS uses Hawk Point-HS (Zen 4) (2023−2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i9-10900F scores 19,800 against the Ryzen 5 8640HS's 19,851 — a 0.3% lead for the Ryzen 5 8640HS. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i9-10900F vs 16 MB (total) on the Ryzen 5 8640HS.

Feature	Core i9-10900F	Ryzen 5 8640HS
Cores / Threads	10 / 20+67%	6 / 12
Boost Clock	5.1 GHz+4%	4.9 GHz
Base Clock	2.8 GHz	3.5 GHz+25%
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)+25%	16 MB (total)
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	1 MB (per core)+300%
Process	14 nm	4 nm-71%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Hawk Point-HS (Zen 4) (2023−2024)
PassMark	19,800	19,851
Cinebench R23 Multi	13,500	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,701	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	8,456	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i9-10900F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Ryzen 5 8640HS uses FP8 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i9-10900F	Ryzen 5 8640HS
Socket	LGA1200	FP8
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0+33%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2933	—
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i9-10900F) / not specified (Ryzen 5 8640HS). Primary use case: Core i9-10900F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i9-10900F rivals Ryzen 7 3800X.