Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Core i5-10400F outperforms the more expensive Ryzen Threadripper 2920X on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Core i5-10400F is 575 days newer than the more expensive Ryzen Threadripper 2920X.
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i5-10400F - 24 vs 12 threads
Advantages of Intel Core i5-10400F
- Performs up to 2% better in Dying Light 2: Stay Human than Ryzen Threadripper 2920X - 132 vs 129 FPS
- Up to 81% cheaper than Ryzen Threadripper 2920X - CA$140.6 vs CA$726.1
- Up to 81% better value when playing Dying Light 2: Stay Human than Ryzen Threadripper 2920X - CA$1.07 vs CA$5.63 per FPS
- Consumes up to 64% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X - 65 vs 180 Watts
Dying Light 2: Stay Human
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Desktop • Oct 3rd, 2018
FPS
129
97%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$5.63/FPS
19%
Price, CA$
CA$726.1
19%
Buy for CA$726.1 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 47 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
132
100%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$1.07/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$140.6
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for CA$140.6 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 47 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Desktop • Oct 3rd, 2018
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X | vs | Intel Core i5-10400F |
---|---|---|
Oct 3rd, 2018 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
Ryzen Threadripper | Collection | Core i5 |
Colfax | Codename | Comet Lake |
AMD Socket SP3r2 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
12 | Cores | 6 |
24 | Threads | 12 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.9 GHz |
4.3 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.3 GHz |
180 W | TDP | 65 W |
12 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 29.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |