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

The Intel Core i5-10400F and the Intel Core i5-10400 are nearly identical on paper, sharing the same Comet Lake architecture, 6 cores, 12 threads, and 2.90 GHz base clock with a 4.30 GHz boost. The critical distinction is the presence of integrated graphics on the non-F variant. However, the benchmark data reveals a more complex story, with the F variant showing surprisingly large leads in several CPU-heavy tests despite the shared specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head data is the massive divergence in Cinebench and Geekbench scores, where the Intel Core i5-10400F dominates. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 10400F scores 1036 against the 10400’s 838, a delta of 23.6%. This gap persists across the entire Cinebench suite: R15 singlecore shows 146 versus 118 (23.7% lead), R20 multicore shows 4318 versus 3492 (23.7%), R20 singlecore shows 609 versus 493 (23.5%), R23 multicore shows 10283 versus 8316 (23.7%), and R23 singlecore shows 1451 versus 1174 (23.6%). These are not marginal differences; they represent a consistent performance tier separation.

Geekbench results amplify this trend. The 10400F achieves a multicore score of 6257, which is 30.6% higher than the 10400’s 4790. The singlecore gap is similarly pronounced at 28.2%, with scores of 1420 and 1108 respectively. For any workload that relies on these renderers or general-purpose integer operations, the 10400F is decisively ahead. The data suggests the 10400F is being measured under conditions that favor its sustained boost behavior, while the 10400 may be constrained by its integrated graphics controller’s power draw or thermal overhead. However, the fact pack does not specify such mechanisms, so the cause remains qualitative.

In contrast, the 3DMark and Passmark suites tell a different story. Here, the two processors are effectively tied. In 3DMark 16-threads, the 10400F wins 4748 to 4743 (0.1% delta). The 2-thread and single-thread tests are dead even at 1350 and 688 respectively. The 10400F takes 8-threads at 3929 versus 3922 (0.2%) and max-threads at 4735 versus 4715 (0.4%). The only 3DMark win for the 10400 is in 4-threads, where it scores 2567 against 2560, a -0.3% delta in its favor. These differences are within noise for synthetic gaming workloads.

Passmark results are similarly close, but the 10400 actually wins more individual tests. The 10400 leads in data compression (187207 vs 185944, -0.7% delta), extended instructions (12501 vs 12500, essentially tied at 0%), floating point math (26080 vs 25956, -0.5%), integer math (41715 vs 41471, -0.6%), random string sorting (23206 vs 23185, -0.1%), and both single-thread tests (2560 vs 2541, -0.7%). The 10400F wins passmark data encryption (4100 vs 4078, 0.5%), find prime numbers (35 vs 34, 2.9%), multithread (12115 vs 12006, 0.9%), and physics (696 vs 669, 4.0%). The overall win count is 17 for the 10400F and 8 for the 10400, but the margin in most Passmark tests is under 1%, making the practical difference negligible for everyday applications.

Where Each One Wins

The 10400F’s wins are concentrated in rendering and synthetic CPU benchmarks. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 10283 places it in a tier that the 10400’s 8316 cannot reach, making the F variant the clear choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any other workload that scales with sustained multi-threaded throughput. The Geekbench multicore gap of 30.6% reinforces this, suggesting the 10400F is better suited for productivity suites that use Geekbench-style integer and floating-point operations. Single-threaded Cinebench and Geekbench wins also indicate a slight edge in lightly-threaded tasks like legacy applications or certain simulation software, though the margin varies from 23.5% to 28.2%.

The 10400’s wins are narrower and more specialized. Its Passmark data compression score of 187207 edges out the 10400F’s 185944, which could translate to a minor advantage in file archiving or database compression workloads. The floating point math score of 26080 versus 25956 and integer math of 41715 versus 41471 suggest the 10400 is marginally stronger in raw arithmetic throughput, though the deltas are under 1%. The 3DMark 4-thread win (2567 vs 2560) is the only gaming-oriented benchmark where the 10400 leads, but it is a negligible 0.3% difference. In practice, the 10400’s wins are so small that they would only matter in benchmark-chasing scenarios, not real-world usage.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this split. The 10400F has an average benchmark score of 14185, which places it 0.2% above the Intel Xeon 6756E and 0.5% above the AMD EPYC 7552. The 10400’s average of 14037 puts it 0.6% below the AMD EPYC 7552 and 0.7% above the AMD EPYC 7443. The 10400F’s nearest rival deltaPct values show it trailing the Intel Core 7 160UL by 0.3% and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C by 0.6%, while the 10400 trails the Intel Xeon 6756E by 0.9% and the 10400F itself by 1%. Both sit at the 68th percentile of all CPUs, meaning the F variant’s higher raw scores do not push it into a higher overall performance bracket.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for CPU-bound workloads: the Intel Core i5-10400F is the stronger processor. Its 23.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore and 30.6% lead in Geekbench multicore are not minor variations; they represent a substantial performance advantage in rendering, compilation, and scientific computing. For a desktop user who already has a discrete GPU, the 10400F is the superior choice because it delivers higher scores across the vast majority of benchmark tests, winning 17 out of 25 head-to-head comparisons.

However, the Intel Core i5-10400 is not without merit. Its integrated UHD Graphics 630 is the decisive feature for builds without a dedicated graphics card. The benchmark data shows the 10400 winning in Passmark single-thread (2560 vs 2541) and data compression (187207 vs 185944), which suggests it is not universally slower. The 10400’s wins are small, but they exist, and for users who need display output from the CPU or who run specific arithmetic-heavy Passmark workloads, the 10400 holds a slight edge. The 10400’s average benchmark score of 14037 is only 1% below the 10400F’s 14185, so the overall performance envelope is close.

The choice hinges on use case. If the system will have a discrete graphics card, the 10400F offers higher Cinebench and Geekbench scores for no additional cost in performance. If the system must operate without a GPU, the 10400 is the only option of the two. The data does not show any scenario where the 10400 beats the 10400F by more than 0.7%, while the 10400F beats the 10400 by as much as 30.6%. For pure compute, the 10400F is the verdict. For systems requiring integrated graphics, the 10400 is the functional necessity, despite its lower scores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-10400F is significantly ahead in multi-core tests. It scores 10283 in Cinebench R23 multicore versus the 10400’s 8316, a 23.7% advantage, and 6257 in Geekbench multicore versus 4790, a 30.6% advantage.

Q: Are the two processors identical in specifications?

A: No. While both have 6 cores, 12 threads, 2.90 GHz base clock, 4.30 GHz boost clock, 12 MB L3 cache, and a 65W TDP, the Intel Core i5-10400 includes UHD Graphics 630 integrated graphics, while the 10400F has no integrated graphics.

Q: Does the 10400F win every benchmark?

A: No. The 10400F wins 17 of 25 head-to-head tests, but the 10400 wins 8, including Passmark data compression (187207 vs 185944), floating point math (26080 vs 25956), integer math (41715 vs 41471), and single-thread (2560 vs 2541).

Q: How close are the overall average benchmark scores?

A: The 10400F has an average benchmark score of 14185, while the 10400 scores 14037. This is a difference of roughly 1%, with the 10400F landing 0.2% above the Intel Xeon 6756E and the 10400 landing 0.7% above the AMD EPYC 7443.

Q: Which processor is better for gaming?

A: Based on 3DMark results, they are effectively tied. The 10400F wins 16-threads (4748 vs 4743), 8-threads (3929 vs 3922), and max-threads (4735 vs 4715), while the 10400 wins 4-threads (2567 vs 2560). All deltas are under 0.5%.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark gap?

A: The largest delta is in Geekbench multicore, where the 10400F’s 6257 score is 30.6% higher than the 10400’s 4790. The Cinebench R20 and R23 tests all show consistent 23.5-23.7% gaps in favor of the 10400F.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same underlying architecture: Comet Lake, built on a 14 nm process node by Intel. The codename is Comet Lake for both, and they belong to the Core 10th Gen series. The generation field lists both as "Core i5 (Comet Lake)", confirming they are not derived from different silicon revisions. The foundry is Intel for both, and there are no differences in transistors or die size listed, as those fields are null in the data.

The cache hierarchy is identical: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is also the same, with DDR4 on a dual-channel bus providing 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is not supported on either. PCIe connectivity is Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU on both. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a differentiator.

The single architectural difference is the integrated graphics. The Intel Core i5-10400 includes UHD Graphics 630, while the Intel Core i5-10400F has a null value for integrated graphics, meaning it has none. This is the only functional architecture-level divergence, as the CPU cores, memory controller, and PCIe lanes are otherwise identical. The presence of the iGPU on the 10400 does not change the core count, cache, or clock speeds, but it does add a display output capability that the 10400F lacks entirely.

Specification Differences

The two processors share most specifications, but a few fields differ. The most obvious is integrated graphics: the 10400F has a null value, while the 10400 lists UHD Graphics 630. This is the primary spec difference and drives the part number distinction (SRH3DSRH79 for the 10400F, SRH3CSRH78 for the 10400). Both have the same base clock of 2.90 GHz, boost clock of 4.30 GHz, 6 cores, 12 threads, and 65W TDP.

The socket is identical (Intel Socket 1200), as is the process node (14 nm), memory bus (Dual-channel), memory bandwidth (42.7 GB/s), and PCIe configuration (Gen 3, 16 Lanes CPU only). The release date is the same for both: 2020-04-29. Neither has a launch MSRP listed in the data. The market segment is Desktop for both, and production status is Active for both.

The only other differences are in benchmark scores, which are not specification fields but measurement outcomes. The 10400F has a higher avgBenchmarkScore (14185 vs 14037) and a higher percentileVsAllCpus (68 for both, so no difference there). The absence of integrated graphics on the 10400F is the sole specification gap, and it does not affect the listed core, cache, or memory specs. In every measurable hardware attribute except the iGPU, the two are identical.