i5-10400F vs EPYC 7252

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7252
2019
8 cores / 16 threads, 120 Watt
12.22
+49%
Core i5-10400F
2020
6 cores / 12 threads, 65 Watt
8.20

EPYC 7252 outperforms Core i5-10400F by a considerable 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7252 and Core i5-10400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking636926
Place by popularitynot in top-1009
Cost-effectiveness evaluation11.0323.93
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Power efficiency9.6411.94
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2017−2020)Comet Lake (2020)
Release date7 August 2019 (5 years ago)30 April 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$475$155

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i5-10400F has 117% better value for money than EPYC 7252.

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7252 and Core i5-10400F basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores8 (Octa-Core)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads1612
Base clock speed2.8 GHz2.9 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz4.3 GHz
Bus rateno data8 GT/s
Multiplier31no data
L1 cache512 KB64K (per core)
L2 cache4 MB256K (per core)
L3 cache64 MB (shared)12 MB (shared)
Chip lithography7 nm, 14 nm14 nm
Die size192 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data72 °C
Number of transistors4,800 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7252 and Core i5-10400F compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration2 (Multiprocessor)1
SocketTR4FCLGA1200
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7252 and Core i5-10400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-
Precision Boost 2+no data

Security technologies

EPYC 7252 and Core i5-10400F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
Identity Protection-+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® ME
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7252 and Core i5-10400F are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7252 and Core i5-10400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Eight-channelDDR4
Maximum memory size4 TiB128 GB
Max memory channels82
Maximum memory bandwidth204.763 GB/s41.6 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7252 and Core i5-10400F.

PCIe versionno data3.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

EPYC 7252 12.22
+49%
i5-10400F 8.20

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

EPYC 7252 19411
+49%
i5-10400F 13029

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.22 8.20
Recency 7 August 2019 30 April 2020
Physical cores 8 6
Threads 16 12
Chip lithography 7 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 65 Watt

EPYC 7252 has a 49% higher aggregate performance score, 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

i5-10400F, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months, and 84.6% lower power consumption.

The EPYC 7252 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-10400F in performance tests.

Be aware that EPYC 7252 is a server/workstation processor while Core i5-10400F is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7252 and Core i5-10400F, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD EPYC 7252
EPYC 7252
Intel Core i5-10400F
Core i5-10400F

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.9 29 votes

Rate EPYC 7252 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 13786 votes

Rate Core i5-10400F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 7252 or Core i5-10400F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.