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 $39 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 7 260.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 260 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 28,339).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 142.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
❌44.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 45W.

Ryzen 7 260

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +104.1% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Delivers 74.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 142.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($199 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
✅Draws 45W instead of 65W, a 20W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FP8 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌
24.4% HIGHER MSRP
$199 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Ryzen 7 260

2025

Why buy it

✅Costs $39 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 7 260.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +104.1% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Delivers 74.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 142.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($199 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
✅Draws 45W instead of 65W, a 20W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FP8 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 260 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 28,339).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 81.4 vs 142.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
❌44.4% higher power demand at 65W vs 45W.

Trade-offs

❌
24.4% HIGHER MSRP
$199 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 7 260 better than Core i5-10400F?

Yes. Ryzen 7 260 is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 104.1% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data, 117.5% better 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, Ryzen 7 260 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 104.1% more average FPS across 2 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen 7 260 is the better fit. You are getting 117.5% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Ryzen 7 260 is the smarter buy today. Ryzen 7 260 is 24.4% more expensive on MSRP at $199 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 104.1% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 74.9% better value on MSRP (142.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$), 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?

Ryzen 7 260 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2020), a healthier platform with FP8 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200, 33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 16 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

Ryzen 7 260 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 7 260
1080p
low	192 FPS	265 FPS
medium	152 FPS	240 FPS
high	123 FPS	202 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	174 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	234 FPS
medium	119 FPS	192 FPS
high	97 FPS	156 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	138 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	162 FPS
medium	70 FPS	135 FPS
high	55 FPS	104 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	91 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 7 260

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 7 260
1080p
low	326 FPS	485 FPS
medium	318 FPS	399 FPS
high	290 FPS	341 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	304 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	423 FPS
medium	292 FPS	367 FPS
high	267 FPS	314 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	267 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	279 FPS
medium	258 FPS	253 FPS
high	235 FPS	237 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	204 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 7 260

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 7 260
1080p
low	326 FPS	708 FPS
medium	326 FPS	708 FPS
high	326 FPS	708 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	623 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	708 FPS
medium	326 FPS	644 FPS
high	326 FPS	544 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	467 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	540 FPS
medium	326 FPS	474 FPS
high	289 FPS	421 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	357 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 7 260

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 7 260
1080p
low	326 FPS	708 FPS
medium	326 FPS	708 FPS
high	326 FPS	708 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	708 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	708 FPS
medium	326 FPS	708 FPS
high	326 FPS	657 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	572 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	574 FPS
medium	326 FPS	511 FPS
high	326 FPS	455 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	393 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen 7 260

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 7 260

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.

Ryzen 7 260

The Ryzen 7 260 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 6 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Hawk Point (2024−2025) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.8 GHz, with boost up to 5.1 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: FP8. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 28,339 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Ryzen 7 260 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Ryzen 7 260 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5.1 GHz on the Ryzen 7 260 — a 17% clock advantage for the Ryzen 7 260 (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.8 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen 7 260 uses Hawk Point (2024−2025) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen 7 260's 28,339 — a 74% lead for the Ryzen 7 260. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 16 MB (total) on the Ryzen 7 260.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 7 260
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 16+33%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	5.1 GHz+19%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.8 GHz+31%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	16 MB (total)+33%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	1 MB (per core)+300%
Process	14 nm	4 nm-71%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Hawk Point (2024−2025)
PassMark	13,029	28,339+118%
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 Ryzen 7 260 uses FP8 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR5-5600 on the Ryzen 7 260 — the Ryzen 7 260 supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i5-10400F supports up to 128 GB of RAM compared to 64 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 20 (Ryzen 7 260) — the Ryzen 7 260 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 7 260
Socket	LGA1200	FP8
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR5-5600+25%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+100%	64 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	20+25%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Ryzen 7 260 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs AMD-V (Ryzen 7 260). The Ryzen 7 260 includes integrated graphics (Radeon 780M), while the Core i5-10400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Ryzen 7 260 targets Mobile. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen 7 260
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	Radeon 780M
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V
Target Use	Gaming	Mobile

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Ryzen 7 260 debuted at $199. On MSRP ($160 vs $199), the Core i5-10400F is $39 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 142.4 pts/$ for the Ryzen 7 260 — making the Ryzen 7 260 the 54.5% better value option.