OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core i5-10400H review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£170PassMark multi-core score:8199N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.6 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1440TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

Intel Core i5-10400H Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.4/10

Overall score

Score
6.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
Score components

40%

5.0

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 60% of processors
7.4

Value for money

Value for money
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 54% of models
Score components

70%

6.4

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

â–²Better than 54%
5.0

Technical score

Technical score
5.0/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
Score components

60%

4.7

Performance

18%

4.1

Architecture

10%

5.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 60%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 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 25% 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 (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £170
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i5-10400H

Technical score
Technical score
5.0/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
Score components:

60%

4.7

Performance

18%

4.1

Architecture

10%

5.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated graphics

5.0
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 54% of models
Score components:

70%

6.4

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

7.4
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1440
This processor uses the FCBGA1440 CPU socket, which is older than that of 82.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.5% of processors.
Chipset
?
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is broader support than 58.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.6% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.6 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.6 GHz which is higher than that of 59.9% of processors and equal to that of 4.7% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.6 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.6 GHz which is lower than that of 66.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
8,199
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 8,199 in PassMark, which is lower than 58.2% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.9% of processors and equal to that of 29% of processors.
L3 cache
8 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is smaller than that of 50.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,933 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,933 MHz, which is lower than that of 50.3% of processors and equal to 5.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2933 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2933 MHz, which is lower than that of 54% of processors and equal to 4.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 630
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 630 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 45.6% of processors and equal to that in 8% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.1% of processors and equal to 20.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.7% of processors and equal to that of 25.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 45 W which is lower than that of 41.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
45 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 45 W which is lower than that of 41.9% of processors and equal to that of 11% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
90 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 90 W which is higher than that of 60% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 4.4% of processors and equal to that of 85.3% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 35 W
Show more

Intel Core i5-10400H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4.09x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,390.7 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,390.69 vs 340.075
  • 4.32x more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (8 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    8 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 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
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (126 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    126 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 4.5% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 4.09x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,390.7 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,390.69 vs 340.075
  • 4.5% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 4.32x more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (8 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    8 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (126 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    126 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
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 28.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (8,199 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    8,199 vs 11,469
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 MB vs 3 MB
  • 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
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot 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, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot 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, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1440 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1440 vs FP5
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 28.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (8,199 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    8,199 vs 11,469
  • 22.9% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (4,014 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    4,014 vs 5,209
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 9.2% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,394 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,394 vs 1,535
  • 3.9% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (471 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    471 vs 490
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 MB vs 3 MB
  • 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
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 40.6% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (90 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    90 W vs 64 W

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i5-10400H

  • High turbo clock speeds up to 4.6 GHz for responsive single-core performance
  • Supports Hyper-Threading (4 cores, 8 threads), which helps with multitasking and threaded workloads
  • Stable performance under sustained load in laptops with adequate cooling systems
  • Good value for budget-to-midrange gaming laptops when paired with a discrete GPU
  • Included support for business-oriented management features like vPro, TXT, and SIPP

What customers don't like about Intel Core i5-10400H

  • High 45W TDP requires a robust and often noisy cooling solution to prevent thermal throttling
  • Significant battery drain under load due to the older 14nm process technology
  • Integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630 is weak and struggling with modern games even at low settings
  • Limited to 4 physical cores, which some users consider a bottleneck for modern AAA gaming compared to newer 6-core options
  • Locked multiplier prevents traditional overclocking

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-10400H is a 10th-generation Comet Lake-H mobile processor built on a 14nm++ process, featuring 4 cores and 8 threads with a base frequency of 2.6 GHz and a maximum turbo boost of 4.6 GHz. Equipped with an 8MB Intel Smart Cache and a 45W TDP, it supports up to 128GB of DDR4-2933 RAM and includes integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630. Main pros include solid single-core performance for productivity, support for advanced features like vPro and Wi-Fi 6, and a configurable TDP-down to 35W for improved thermal management in thinner laptops. However, notable cons include its limitation to four physical cores compared to six-core desktop counterparts, a lack of overclocking support, and a tendency to run hot in laptops with insufficient cooling solutions.

Compare Intel Core i5-10400H with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

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

No results found