Intel Core i5-10400F vs Intel Core i7-8750H Comparison

The Intel Core i5-10400F and Intel Core i7-8750H are both six-core, twelve-thread processors, but they serve entirely different platforms. The i5-10400F is a desktop part for Socket 1200, while the i7-8750H is a mobile chip for BGA 1440. The benchmark data is unambiguous: across all 19 head-to-head tests, the i5-10400F wins outright, with no victories for the i7-8750H. The average benchmark scores confirm this gap, with the i5-10400F posting an average of 14185 compared to the i7-8750H’s 13868. Both CPUs sit at the 68th percentile of all processors, meaning they belong to the same performance tier overall, but the desktop part consistently pulls ahead in every measured task.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head data is the consistency of the i5-10400F’s advantage. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i5-10400F scores 10283 against the i7-8750H’s 8274, a 24.3% lead. Single-core performance tells a similar story: Cinebench R23 single-core shows 1451 versus 1168, a 24.2% advantage. This is not a case of one chip winning in multi-threaded workloads and the other taking single-threaded tasks; the i5-10400F dominates both.

The gap widens significantly in certain specialized workloads. The PassMark extended instructions test shows the i5-10400F at 12500 versus 8637, a massive 44.7% lead. Data compression is another blowout: 185944 for the i5-10400F against 139418 for the i7-8750H, a 33.4% margin. These are not minor differences—they represent substantial real-world performance gaps in encryption, compression, and SIMD-heavy tasks.

Some tests show tighter, but still decisive, margins. In PassMark integer math, the i5-10400F scores 41471 versus 35629, a 16.4% lead. Floating point math is closer still: 25956 against 22179, a 17% difference. The smallest single-core gap appears in Geekbench single-core, where the i5-10400F scores 1420 versus 1309, an 8.5% edge. Even in the most favorable test for the i7-8750H, it still loses by nearly nine percentage points.

The multi-threaded benchmarks consistently favor the desktop chip. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 4318 versus 3475 (24.3% delta), while Geekbench multi-core shows 6257 versus 4978 (25.7% delta). PassMark multithread follows suit with 12115 against 9799, a 23.6% lead. The i7-8750H’s lower base and boost clocks—2.20 GHz and 4.10 GHz respectively against the i5-10400F’s 2.90 GHz and 4.30 GHz—explain much of this consistent deficit.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel’s 14 nm process node, but they represent different generations and design philosophies. The i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake architecture, released for the Core 10th Gen series. The i7-8750H uses the older Coffee Lake architecture, specifically Coffee Lake-H, targeting mobile platforms. The i5-10400F has a die size that is not listed, while the i7-8750H has a documented die size of 149 mm².

Cache configurations are identical: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. Both support DDR4 memory in dual-channel mode for the i5-10400F, though the i7-8750H does not list memory bus or bandwidth specifications. The i5-10400F has a listed memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, while the i7-8750H has no such figure. Neither chip supports ECC memory.

A key differentiator is the integrated graphics. The i5-10400F has no integrated graphics, hence the “F” suffix—it requires a discrete GPU. The i7-8750H includes UHD 630 graphics, making it a self-contained mobile solution. The i5-10400F supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the i7-8750H does not list PCIe specifications. The i5-10400F is actively in production, whereas the i7-8750H is end-of-life.

The sockets could not be more different: the i5-10400F uses Intel Socket 1200, a desktop platform, while the i7-8750H uses Intel BGA 1440, a soldered mobile package. The i5-10400F has a 65 W TDP, while the i7-8750H is rated at 45 W, reflecting its mobile design constraints. The i5-10400F was released on 2020-04-29, while the i7-8750H came earlier on 2018-04-01. Both have locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The i5-10400F wins every multi-threaded benchmark. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 10283 versus 8274 for the i7-8750H, a 24.3% advantage. Geekbench multi-core shows 6257 versus 4978, a 25.7% lead.

Q: Is the single-core performance gap as large as multi-core?

A: No, but the i5-10400F still wins. The smallest single-core margin is in Geekbench single-core, where the i5-10400F leads by 8.5% (1420 vs 1309). In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap is 24.2% (1451 vs 1168).

Q: Do both CPUs have the same core counts and cache?

A: Yes, both have 6 cores and 12 threads. The cache layout is identical as well: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The architectural difference lies in the generation, not the core topology.

Q: Does the i7-8750H have any advantages?

A: The i7-8750H includes integrated UHD 630 graphics, while the i5-10400F has none. The i7-8750H also has a lower 45 W TDP, suited for mobile use, versus the 65 W TDP of the desktop i5-10400F. Neither chip is unlocked for overclocking.

Q: How do these chips compare in data compression tasks?

A: The i5-10400F is significantly better. PassMark data compression shows 185944 versus 139418, a 33.4% lead. This is one of the largest gaps in any benchmark between the two.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The i5-10400F is listed as active and still in production. The i7-8750H is end-of-life, meaning it is no longer actively manufactured.

The Verdict

The data supports only one conclusion for most use cases: the i5-10400F is the superior processor. It wins 19 out of 19 head-to-head benchmarks, with margins ranging from 8.5% to 44.7%. The average benchmark scores reflect this, with the i5-10400F at 14185 against the i7-8750H’s 13868. Both sit at the 68th percentile, but the desktop chip is consistently faster in every category, from single-core to multi-core, from integer math to data encryption.

The i7-8750H’s only practical advantages are its integrated graphics and lower 45 W TDP, which make it suitable for laptops where a discrete GPU is not always present. But for raw processing power, the i5-10400F is the clear winner. The i7-8750H is also end-of-life, while the i5-10400F remains active, making the latter a more sensible choice for new builds. If you are choosing between these two for a desktop system, the i5-10400F is the obvious pick. If you need a mobile processor with iGPU capabilities, the i7-8750H remains functional but slower.

The comparison to nearest rivals puts both chips in similar company. The i5-10400F’s nearest rival is the Intel Xeon 6756E with an average score of 14163 (0.2% difference) and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C at 14277 (-0.6% difference). The i7-8750H’s nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7443 at 13936 (-0.5%) and the Intel Core i5-10400 at 14037 (-1.2%). These figures show both chips competing in the same performance band, but the i5-10400F sits slightly higher.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-10400F | Intel Core i7-8750H |

|----------------|----------------------|----------------------|

| Architecture | Comet Lake | Coffee Lake |

| Codename | Comet Lake | Coffee Lake-H |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.10 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1200 | Intel BGA 1440 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 14 nm |

| Die Size | N/A | 149 mm² |

| Memory Bandwidth | 42.7 GB/s | N/A |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | N/A |

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD 630 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2020-04-29 | 2018-04-01 |

| Part Number | SRH3DSRH79 | SR3YY |

Where Each One Wins

The i5-10400F wins in every benchmark category, so the practical question is where the i7-8750H can still be justified. The i7-8750H’s integrated UHD 630 graphics make it a viable option for a laptop that needs to output to a display without a discrete GPU. Its lower 45 W TDP also makes it more power-efficient on paper, which is critical for battery life in mobile systems. For anyone building a desktop, the i5-10400F is the only choice—it offers better performance across the board, with a 24.2% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core (1036 vs 834) and a 24.3% lead in Cinebench R20 multi-core (4318 vs 3475).

For specific workloads, the i5-10400F is particularly strong in extended instruction sets (44.7% lead), data compression (33.4% lead), and prime number finding (29.6% lead). These tasks benefit from the higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz versus 4.10 GHz. The i7-8750H would only be chosen for its form factor and iGPU, not for performance. Even in the least favorable test for the i5-10400F—Geekbench single-core—it still wins by 8.5%. There is no scenario in the data where the i7-8750H outperforms the i5-10400F. The verdict is clear: for desktop users, the i5-10400F is categorically superior; for mobile users, the i7-8750H is a legacy option with integrated graphics but significantly lower benchmark scores.