Intel Core i3-10320 vs Intel Core i5-10400F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark record between the Intel Core i3-10320 and the Intel Core i5-10400F is decisively one-sided. Across 17 shared tests, the i5-10400F claims 15 wins, while the i3-10320 manages only 2. The margin in most workloads is substantial, and the pattern is consistent across rendering, compression, and math-heavy tasks.

The largest gap appears in PassMark extended instructions, where the i5-10400F scores 12500 against 9284 for the i3-10320, a 25.7% advantage. Similar magnitudes show up in integer math (41471 vs 31071, a 25.1% gap) and floating-point math (25956 vs 19483, a 24.9% gap). These are not marginal differences; they reflect a fundamental throughput advantage that holds across nearly every measured category.

Data compression follows the same story. The i5-10400F scores 185944 in PassMark data compression versus 140255 for the i3-10320, a 24.6% delta. Random string sorting also favors the i5-10400F by 23.1%, with scores of 23185 and 17821. Encryption shows a smaller but still clear lead: 4100 versus 3458, a 15.7% edge.

Rendering benchmarks reinforce the trend. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i5-10400F scores 10283 against 8486 for the i3-10320, a 17.5% lead. The R20 multi-core result is similar: 4318 versus 3564, also a 17.5% gap. R15 multi-core shows the same 17.5% delta (1036 vs 855). The consistency of these deltas across all three Cinebench versions suggests a stable architectural scaling advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Single-core Cinebench results also go to the i5-10400F, though the margins are smaller. In R23 single-core, the i5-10400F scores 1451 against 1198, a 17.4% lead. R20 single-core shows 609 versus 503 (17.4% gap), and R15 single-core shows 146 versus 120 (17.8% gap). These are surprisingly large single-thread deltas for two chips from the same Comet Lake generation, and they indicate that the i5-10400F's boost behavior or frequency scaling delivers more in these tests than the i3-10320's higher rated boost clock would suggest.

The only bright spot for the i3-10320 is PassMark single-thread performance. It scores 2841 against 2541 for the i5-10400F, an 11.8% win. This is the one test where the i3-10320's higher clock speeds translate into a real advantage, and it appears twice in the dataset under slightly different test names (single_thread and singlethread) with identical scores.

The closest contest is PassMark physics, where the i5-10400F wins by only 1% (696 vs 689). Prime number finding is also close in percentage terms: the i5-10400F scores 35 versus 32, an 8.6% edge, though the absolute numbers are small.

Overall, the i5-10400F leads by roughly 17% to 26% in the majority of tests, with the i3-10320's only win coming in a narrow single-thread metric. The average benchmark score in the database tells a similar story: the i3-10320 sits at 14852, while the i5-10400F sits at 14185. This is noteworthy because the i3-10320 actually has a higher average score despite losing the head-to-head sweep, a quirk driven by different benchmark sets feeding into each average. The percentile rankings are close as well: the i3-10320 sits at the 69th percentile of all CPUs, while the i5-10400F sits at the 68th.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for most buyers: the Intel Core i5-10400F is the stronger processor in nearly every measurable workload. If your priority is multi-core performance, content creation, or any task that scales across threads, the i5-10400F's 15 out of 17 win count makes the decision straightforward. The 17.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and the 24.6% lead in data compression are the kinds of margins that translate into visibly faster render times and snappier archive handling.

The i3-10320 is the pick only if your workload is dominated by lightly threaded tasks and you specifically value the PassMark single-thread result, where it leads by 11.8%. That is a narrow use case. The i5-10400F still beats it in Cinebench single-core tests by about 17.4% to 17.8%, so even in single-threaded scenarios the i5-10400F is often ahead depending on the benchmark. The i3-10320's single-thread win appears only in PassMark, not in Cinebench.

For a general-purpose desktop CPU, the i5-10400F is the better recommendation. It also carries a lower TDP of 65 watts compared to 91 watts for the i3-10320, which means it delivers more performance while drawing less power on paper. The i5-10400F does lack integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is mandatory, whereas the i3-10320 includes UHD Graphics 630. That is the one practical consideration that might push a system builder toward the i3-10320: if you need a fallback display output or want to build without a GPU temporarily, the i3-10320 can handle it. Otherwise, the i5-10400F wins on performance across the board.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's Comet Lake architecture, use the same 14 nm process node, and are fabricated by Intel. They share the same codename, Comet Lake, and belong to the Core 10th Gen family. The socket is identical: Intel Socket 1200 for both.

The core counts differ significantly. The i3-10320 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i5-10400F has 6 cores and 12 threads. That is 50% more cores and 50% more threads on the i5-10400F, which explains the consistent multi-threaded performance advantage.

Cache configurations differ as well. Both chips have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache is where they diverge: the i3-10320 has 8 MB of shared L3, while the i5-10400F has 12 MB of shared L3. That is a 4 MB difference in favor of the i5-10400F, giving it more room to hold working sets for multi-threaded workloads.

Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The i3-10320 has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The i5-10400F has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The i3-10320 is rated higher on both counts, which explains its PassMark single-thread win. The i5-10400F compensates with more cores and more cache.

The i3-10320 includes Intel UHD Graphics 630 as integrated graphics. The i5-10400F has no integrated graphics at all, as indicated by the null field in its specification. The "F" suffix in the i5-10400F name signals this lack of an iGPU. This is a meaningful architectural difference for system builders, as the i5-10400F requires a discrete graphics card for any display output.

Both processors support DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. Neither supports ECC memory. Both use PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not officially supported on either chip.

The release dates are identical: both launched on 2020-04-29. Both are still listed as active production parts. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ on the following specification fields:

• Cores: i3-10320 has 4, i5-10400F has 6
• Threads: i3-10320 has 8, i5-10400F has 12
• Base clock: i3-10320 at 3.80 GHz, i5-10400F at 2.90 GHz
• Boost clock: i3-10320 at 4.60 GHz, i5-10400F at 4.30 GHz
• TDP: i3-10320 at 91 watts, i5-10400F at 65 watts
• L3 cache: i3-10320 has 8 MB shared, i5-10400F has 12 MB shared
• Integrated graphics: i3-10320 has UHD Graphics 630, i5-10400F has none
• Part number: i3-10320 is SRH3G, i5-10400F is SRH3DSRH79

Fields that are identical include manufacturer (Intel), socket (Intel Socket 1200), architecture (Comet Lake), process node (14 nm), foundry (Intel), L1 cache (64 KB per core), L2 cache (256 KB per core), memory support (DDR4), memory bus (Dual-channel), memory bandwidth (42.7 GB/s), ECC support (false), PCIe configuration (Gen 3, 16 lanes CPU only), market segment (Desktop), production status (Active), release date (2020-04-29), multiplier unlocked (false), and generation (both are listed as Comet Lake variants).

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The i5-10400F wins every multi-core benchmark in the head-to-head set. In Cinebench R23 multi-core it scores 10283 versus 8486 for the i3-10320, a 17.5% lead. PassMark multithread shows 12115 versus 9982, a 17.6% gap.

Q: Does the i3-10320 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins 2 of the 17 head-to-head tests. Both wins are in PassMark single-thread tests, where it scores 2841 against 2541 for the i5-10400F, an 11.8% advantage. The two test entries (single_thread and singlethread) record identical scores.

Q: Can I use either CPU without a dedicated graphics card?

A: The i3-10320 includes UHD Graphics 630, so it can output display without a discrete GPU. The i5-10400F has no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is required for any display output.

Q: Which CPU has a higher TDP?

A: The i3-10320 has a TDP of 91 watts, while the i5-10400F has a TDP of 65 watts. The i5-10400F delivers more performance in most tests while carrying a lower TDP rating.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: The i3-10320 has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The i5-10400F has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Despite lower clock speeds, the i5-10400F wins Cinebench single-core tests by about 17.4% to 17.8%, though it loses the PassMark single-thread test by 11.8%.

Q: Are these CPUs on the same socket and platform?

A: Yes, both use Intel Socket 1200 and are based on the Comet Lake architecture on a 14 nm process. They share the same memory support (DDR4 dual-channel, 42.7 GB/s) and the same PCIe configuration (Gen 3, 16 lanes from the CPU).

Where Each One Wins

The i5-10400F is the clear winner for multi-threaded productivity. Its 6 cores and 12 threads give it a decisive edge in rendering, as shown by the 17.5% lead across all three Cinebench multi-core versions. Content creation workloads that scale across cores, such as video encoding or 3D rendering, will favor the i5-10400F. Data-heavy tasks also lean strongly toward the i5-10400F: data compression is 24.6% faster, random string sorting is 23.1% faster, and data encryption is 15.7% faster. Math workloads follow the same pattern, with integer math up 25.1% and floating-point math up 24.9%.

The i5-10400F also wins most single-threaded benchmarks, despite its lower clock speeds. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests all show the i5-10400F ahead by roughly 17.4% to 17.8%. This makes it the better choice even for many lightly threaded applications, unless those applications specifically resemble the PassMark single-thread workload.

The i3-10320 wins only in PassMark single-thread performance. The 11.8% edge there is real but narrow. For users running legacy or niche software that behaves like the PassMark single-thread test, the i3-10320 could feel slightly snappier. It also has the practical advantage of integrated graphics, which matters for troubleshooting, basic office builds without a GPU, or as a stopgap during a GPU upgrade.

For the vast majority of desktop use cases, the database points to the i5-10400F. It wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, offers more cores, more cache, and a lower TDP. The only reasons to choose the i3-10320 are the need for integrated graphics or a specific sensitivity to the PassMark single-thread metric. Everything else favors the i5-10400F.