OVERALL

ALTERNATIVES

SPECS

VS AVERAGE

REVIEWS

Intel Core i5-10400F review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£95PassMark multi-core score:?N. of physical cores:6CPU boost clock speed:4.3 GHzCPU socket:LGA1200TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i5-10400F Review: Compare 168 technical specifications, 7 expert and video reviews and 1 best-of list to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i5-10400F

6.8/10

▲Better than 52% of processors

7.8

▲Better than 73%

5.9

▲Better than 52%

8.2

▲Better than 84%

9.5

▲Better than 85%

5.9

▲Better than 88%

5.3
Gaming
Gaming
5.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Measures single-core benchmark performance, peak boost clock speeds, and fast L3 cache sizing critical for high frame rates.
When it matters
When you want to play demanding mobile games, 3D titles, or run graphics-intensive apps smoothly.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
30.0%
?
PassMark single-core score
25.0%
4.3
Geekbench 6 single-core score
20.0%
5.8
CPU boost clock speed
17.0%
2.1
L3 cache
8.0%
3.6
N. of physical cores
4.6
Video editing
Video editing
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Assesses multi-core benchmark throughput, total physical core and thread count, and cache bandwidth for rapid video rendering.
When it matters
When evaluating how effectively this processors meets your specific video editing needs.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
45.0%
4.9
Geekbench 6 multi-core score
20.0%
3.6
N. of physical cores
20.0%
6.6
CPU threads
15.0%
2.1
L3 cache

Best prices

*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

Best rankings

Loading category ranking...

Processors model ranking

Ranked #139 of 558 models in Processors (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i5-10400F

6.8

Show more

Hide

Platform

7.4

Show more

Hide

Processor type

CPU socket

Chipset

CPU architecture

Instruction sets

Show more

Performance

6.4

Show more

Hide

N. of physical cores

CPU threads

CPU boost clock speed

CPU base clock speed

PassMark multi-core score

?

Show more

What reviewers say

Architecture

3.9

Show more

Hide

Semiconductor size

Foundry

L3 cache

L2 cache

L1 cache

Show more

Memory & PCIe

5.7

Show more

Hide

DDR memory version

Maximum memory speed

Max memory speed (JEDEC)

Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)

?

Maximum memory capacity

Show more

Integrated graphics

4.0

Show more

Hide

Integrated graphics

Integrated GPU model

N/A

Integrated GPU execution units

N/A

Integrated GPU base frequency

N/A

Integrated media encoders/decoders

N/A

Show more

Power & Thermal

7.0

Show more

Hide

TDP (Thermal design power)

Base power (PL1)

Boost power (PL2)

Tau (power duration limit)

?

Configurable TDP

?

Show more

What reviewers say

Intel Core i5-10400F vs the average processor

Why is Intel Core i5-10400F better than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

2 more performance cores
This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
6 vs 4
Includes a cooler
This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
22.4% higher review score
Reviews score
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 84% of models
80%
8.1
Average grade
20%
8.4
Popularity
Grades by review (7)
2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 5 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
8.2 vs 6.7
4 more CPU threads
This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
12 vs 8
2x more memory capacity
This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
128 GB vs 64 GB
30.1% higher user score
User score
9.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 85% of models
80%
9.4
Rating
20%
10
Popularity
9.5 vs 7.3
Modern CPU socket
This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1200 vs FP5).
LGA1200 vs FP5
Higher base clock
This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
6x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz

22.4% higher review score
Reviews score
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 84% of models
80%
8.1
Average grade
20%
8.4
Popularity
Grades by review (7)
2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 5 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
8.2 vs 6.7
30.1% higher user score
User score
9.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 85% of models
80%
9.4
Rating
20%
10
Popularity
9.5 vs 7.3
2.63x cheaper
Intel Core i5-10400F is cheaper than the average processor (£95 vs £250).
£95 vs £250

Modern CPU socket
This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1200 vs FP5).
LGA1200 vs FP5

2 more performance cores
This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
6 vs 4
4 more CPU threads
This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
12 vs 8
Higher base clock
This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
6x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz

8.1% more L3 per core
This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
15.3% smaller die size
This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (150 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
150 mm² vs 177 mm²

2x more memory capacity
This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
128 GB vs 64 GB

Includes a cooler
This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.

Why is Intel Core i5-10400F worse than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

Less advanced microarchitecture
This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
Narrower instruction support
This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
24.4% lower list score
List score
5.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 15% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (1)
List score: in 1 of 72 lists (1%)
5.9 vs 7.8
2.09x higher boost power
This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (134 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
134 W vs 64 W
Weaker security extensions
This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
16.7% larger process node
This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
14 nm vs 12 nm
44.4% higher base power
This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
65 W vs 45 W
50% less L2 per core
This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core

24.4% lower list score
List score
5.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 15% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (1)
List score: in 1 of 72 lists (1%)
5.9 vs 7.8
18.1% lower sentiment score
5.9 vs 7.2

Narrower instruction support
This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
Weaker security extensions
This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
More limited crypto acceleration
This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
AES vs AES, SHA

6.7% lower single-core score
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,432 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
1,432 vs 1,535
2.3% lower boost clock
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
4.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz

Less advanced microarchitecture
This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
16.7% larger process node
This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
14 nm vs 12 nm
50% less L2 per core
This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
50% smaller L2 cache
This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
1.5 MB vs 3 MB
49.5% fewer transistors
This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (2.5 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
2.5 billion vs 4.95 billion

16.7% lower memory speed
This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2666 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
2,666 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
Limited PCIe bifurcation
This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
11.3% lower memory bandwidth
This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (41.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
41.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
Lower JEDEC memory speed
This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2666 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
DDR4-2,666 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz

No integrated graphics
This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.

2.09x higher boost power
This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (134 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
134 W vs 64 W
44.4% higher base power
This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
65 W vs 45 W
44.4% higher TDP
This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
65 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

8.0

2Crakd

≈ estimated

07/09/2025

Long-term test · 5 years of personal use

Verdict

Intel Core i5-10400F is still viable in 2025 as a temporary budget chip, not a long-term one.

9.0

Turbo Tortoise Tech

≈ estimated

20/07/2020

Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and comparison with older system

Verdict

Intel Core i5-10400F is a strong budget pick for 1080p gaming and esports, with solid light productivity performance.

Not graded

Not graded

Overview video

Overview video

Not graded

Hands-on video, no verdict

What reviewers agree on

Based on 3 · 5

Solid gaming performance and decent temperatures win praise, but the stock cooler disappoints and overclocking is locked; multi-core opinions are split.

Praised

Mixed views

Criticised

Pick a topic to see who said what

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0

computerbase.de

≈ estimated

23/05/2020

Intel Core i5-10400F im Test

Lab test · Gaming and power limits

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-10400F has twelve threads, matches the older Core i7-8700K in games, and is the best choice for gamers on the LGA 1200 socket.

9.0

pcwelt.de

≈ estimated

24/06/2020

Günstige Gaming-CPUs: Intel Core i5-10400F und Core i3-10100 im

Lab test · Gaming and application benchmarks

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-10400F beats the Ryzen 5 3600 by about 7 percent in Full HD gaming, though the Ryzen is about 10 percent faster in applications.

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i5-10400F

A Geekbench 6 multi-core score of 5750 means long jobs finish sooner.
The 4.3 GHz boost clock keeps lighter tasks responsive.
The 12 MB of L3 cache gives busy workloads a large shared pool.
The box includes a cooler, so you can build without buying one.
A 65 W base power rating keeps everyday running heat in check.
Memory support of up to 128 GB across two channels suits most home and office use.

What we don't like about Intel Core i5-10400F

Boost power reaches 134 W, which asks for a sturdy power supply.
There is no integrated graphics, so a graphics card is required.
Memory is DDR4 only, capped at 2666 MHz.
PCIe 3.0 is an older standard, so the newest fast drives are held back.
Single-core speed of 1432 in Geekbench 6 makes lightly threaded programs feel slower.

Verdict

Six cores and 12 threads are the reason to choose the Intel Core i5-10400F for a budget PC that runs many programs at once. Its Geekbench 6 multi-core score of 5750 shows the extra cores pay off in work that splits across them, such as video encoding or compiling. The single-core score of 1432 is the weaker side, so single tasks feel less lively than multi-core jobs. Memory is DDR4 only, up to 2666 MHz and 128 GB, so there is no DDR5 upgrade path. Its 134 W boost power asks more of the power supply and cooling than the base rating suggests, and the chip has no integrated graphics either. It suits a buyer who runs heavy multitasking, adds a graphics card, and does not need the newest memory.

Best alternatives

AMD Ryzen 5 5600

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 8400F

Processors

Intel Core i3-12100F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 1700

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 7500F

Processors

Intel Core i3-14100F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 4600G

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 7400F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X

Processors

AMD Ryzen 3 5300G

Processors

See best alternatives in Buying Guide

Compare Intel Core i5-10400F with other processors

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i5-10400F and other processors

No results found