
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

Ryzen 7 PRO 5845
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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
2020Why buy it
- ✅Costs $140 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 7 PRO 5845.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 26,054).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 32 MB).
Ryzen 7 PRO 5845
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +42.8% higher average FPS across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌87.5% HIGHER MSRP$300 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020Ryzen 7 PRO 5845
2022Why buy it
- ✅Costs $140 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 7 PRO 5845.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +42.8% higher average FPS across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 26,054).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 32 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌87.5% HIGHER MSRP$300 MSRPvs$160 MSRP
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 better than Core i5-10400F?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 159 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 131 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 115 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 95 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 140 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 113 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 95 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 79 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 78 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 68 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 55 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 44 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 511 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 431 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 336 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 295 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 431 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 377 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 305 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 256 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 267 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 236 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 208 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 179 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 649 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 529 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 480 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 411 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 543 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 449 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 409 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 350 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 396 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 320 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 289 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 227 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 651 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 651 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 651 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 641 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 651 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 651 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 593 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 511 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 526 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 473 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 426 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 371 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 7 PRO 5845

Core i5-10400F
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 PRO 5845
Ryzen 7 PRO 5845
The Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 4 April 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Vermeer (2020−2025) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 4.6 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 26,054 points. Launch price was $299.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.6 GHz on the Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 — a 6.7% clock advantage for the Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.4 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 uses Vermeer (2020−2025) (7 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen 7 PRO 5845's 26,054 — a 66.7% lead for the Ryzen 7 PRO 5845. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 32 MB (total) on the Ryzen 7 PRO 5845.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 8 / 16+33% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz | 4.6 GHz+7% |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz | 3.4 GHz+17% |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 32 MB (total)+167% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 512 kB (per core)+100% |
| Process | 14 nm | 7 nm-50% |
| Architecture | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | Vermeer (2020−2025) |
| PassMark | 13,029 | 26,054+100% |
| 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 PRO 5845 uses AM4 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | AM4 |
| 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 (Ryzen 7 PRO 5845). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | — |
| Target Use | Gaming | — |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 debuted at $300. On MSRP ($160 vs $300), the Core i5-10400F is $140 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 86.8 pts/$ for the Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 — making the Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 the 6.4% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $160-47% | $300 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.4 | 86.8+7% |
| Release Date | 2020 | 2022 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.











