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 $2,339 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $2,499 MSRP).
✅Delivers 87.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 43.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $2,499 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 350W, a 285W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen Threadripper 9970X.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 9970X across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 76,136).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 9970X, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 92 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Ryzen Threadripper 9970X moves to sTR5 and DDR5.

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +100.9% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 92 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅Newer platform on sTR5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
✅475% more PCIe lanes (92 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 43.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($2,499 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌438.5% higher power demand at 350W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

2025

Why buy it

✅Costs $2,339 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $2,499 MSRP).
✅Delivers 87.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 43.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $2,499 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 350W, a 285W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen Threadripper 9970X.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +100.9% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 92 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅Newer platform on sTR5 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
✅475% more PCIe lanes (92 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 9970X across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 76,136).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 9970X, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 92 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Ryzen Threadripper 9970X moves to sTR5 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 43.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($2,499 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌438.5% higher power demand at 350W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen Threadripper 9970X better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Ryzen Threadripper 9970X 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, Ryzen Threadripper 9970X is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 100.9% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 128 MB vs 12 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen Threadripper 9970X is the better fit. You are getting 829.5% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 966.7% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X is the smarter buy by a wide margin for a fresh build. Ryzen Threadripper 9970X is 1461.9% more expensive on MSRP at $2,499 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 100.9% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that is mostly used-market pricing on an obsolete 2020 platform. Even with 87.8% better value on paper (81.4 vs 43.4 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a very cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1200.

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

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2020), a healthier platform with sTR5 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200, 3D V-Cache and a much larger 128 MB L3 cache instead of 12 MB, more multi-core headroom with 32 cores / 64 threads instead of 6/12, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. 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 Threadripper 9970X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 9970X
1080p
low	192 FPS	314 FPS
medium	152 FPS	289 FPS
high	123 FPS	240 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	203 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	278 FPS
medium	119 FPS	231 FPS
high	97 FPS	178 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	158 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	191 FPS
medium	70 FPS	158 FPS
high	55 FPS	121 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	107 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 9970X
1080p
low	326 FPS	818 FPS
medium	318 FPS	697 FPS
high	290 FPS	542 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	472 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	674 FPS
medium	292 FPS	599 FPS
high	267 FPS	480 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	388 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	377 FPS
medium	258 FPS	339 FPS
high	235 FPS	310 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	271 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 9970X
1080p
low	326 FPS	891 FPS
medium	326 FPS	723 FPS
high	326 FPS	649 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	552 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	714 FPS
medium	326 FPS	580 FPS
high	326 FPS	508 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	427 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	508 FPS
medium	326 FPS	419 FPS
high	289 FPS	375 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	311 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 9970X
1080p
low	326 FPS	1116 FPS
medium	326 FPS	1002 FPS
high	326 FPS	879 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	792 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	872 FPS
medium	326 FPS	768 FPS
high	326 FPS	674 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	587 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	636 FPS
medium	326 FPS	568 FPS
high	326 FPS	504 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

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 Threadripper 9970X

The Ryzen Threadripper 9970X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 30 July 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Shimada Peak (2025) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 4 GHz, with boost up to 5.4 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: sTR5. Thermal design power (TDP): 350 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 108,377 points. Launch price was $2,499.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X has 26 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5.4 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X — a 22.7% clock advantage for the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X (base: 2.9 GHz vs 4 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X uses Shimada Peak (2025) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X's 108,377 — a 157.1% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 76,136 (161.1% advantage for the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 3,220, a 75.6% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 29,244 (134% advantage for the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 128 MB (total) on the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 9970X
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	32 / 64+433%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	5.4 GHz+26%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	4 GHz+38%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	128 MB (total)+967%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	1 MB (per core)+300%
Process	14 nm	4 nm-71%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Shimada Peak (2025)
PassMark	13,029	108,377+732%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	76,136+830%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	3,220+121%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	29,244+406%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X uses sTR5 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR5-6400 on the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X — the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X 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 1 TB — 196.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 4 (Ryzen Threadripper 9970X). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 92 (Ryzen Threadripper 9970X) — the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X offers 76 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and TRX50 (Ryzen Threadripper 9970X).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 9970X
Socket	LGA1200	sTR5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR5-6400+25%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	1 TB+700%
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	92+475%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs AMD-V, SVM (Ryzen Threadripper 9970X). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Ryzen Threadripper 9970X targets HEDT / Workstation. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Ryzen Threadripper 9970X rivals Xeon w7-3465X.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Ryzen Threadripper 9970X
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V, SVM
Target Use	Gaming	HEDT / Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X debuted at $2499. On MSRP ($160 vs $2499), the Core i5-10400F is $2339 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 43.4 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X — making the Core i5-10400F the 61% better value option.