i5-10400 vs i7-5820K - The Last of Us Part I RX 6700 XT - Game Performance Benchmarks


i5-10400 i7-5820K

Multi-Thread Performance

12716 Pts
12994 Pts

Single-Thread Performance

2609 Pts
2021 Pts

The Last of Us Part I

i5-10400 vs i7-5820K in The Last of Us Part I using RX 6700 XT - CPU Performance comparison at Ultra, High, Medium, and Low Quality Settings with 1080p, 1440p, Ultrawide, 4K resolutions

i5-10400 i7-5820K

Ultra Quality
Resolution Frames Per Second
1080p
57.3 FPS
1080p
47.7 FPS
1440p
43.5 FPS
1440p
36.3 FPS
2160p
22.9 FPS
2160p
19.1 FPS
w1440p
35.5 FPS
w1440p
29.6 FPS
High Quality
Resolution Frames Per Second
1080p
98.3 FPS
1080p
84.0 FPS
1440p
77.6 FPS
1440p
66.4 FPS
2160p
44.5 FPS
2160p
38.0 FPS
w1440p
65.1 FPS
w1440p
55.6 FPS
Medium Quality
Resolution Frames Per Second
1080p
139.2 FPS
1080p
120.3 FPS
1440p
111.7 FPS
1440p
96.5 FPS
2160p
66.1 FPS
2160p
56.9 FPS
w1440p
94.8 FPS
w1440p
81.7 FPS
Low Quality
Resolution Frames Per Second
1080p
221.1 FPS
1080p
192.8 FPS
1440p
179.9 FPS
1440p
156.7 FPS
2160p
109.4 FPS
2160p
94.7 FPS
w1440p
154.0 FPS
w1440p
133.8 FPS
i5-10400
  • For some games, a cpu with a higher clock speed, or in a technical name IPC (Instructions per clock), has better results than other CPU's with higher core count and lower core speed.
  • The i5-10400 is more power efficient and generates less heat.
  • The i5-10400 has a higher turbo clock boost. Turbo Boost is a CPU feature that will run CPU clock speed faster than its base clock, if certain conditions are present. It will enable older software that runs on fewer cores, to perform better on newer hardware. Since games are software too, it is also applicable to them.
  • The i5-10400 has a smaller process size. The faster a transistor can toggle on and off, the faster it can do work. And transistors that turn on and off with less energy are more efficient, reducing the operating power, or “dynamic power consumption,” required by a processor.
i7-5820K
  • The i7-5820K has higher Level 3 Cache. This is useful when you have substantial multiprocessing workloads, many computationally intense simultaneous processes. More likely on a server, less on a personally used computer for interactive desktop workloads.

Compare i5-10400 vs i7-5820K specifications

i5-10400 vs i7-5820K Architecture

i5-10400 i7-5820K
CodenameComet LakeHaswell-E
GenerationCore i5 (Comet Lake)Core i7 (Haswell EE)
MarketDesktopDesktop
Memory SupportDDR4DDR4
Part#unknownSR20S
Production StatusActiveActive
ReleasedMay 2020Sep 2014

i5-10400 vs i7-5820K Cache

i5-10400 i7-5820K
Cache L164K (per core)64K (per core)
Cache L2256K (per core)256K (per core)
Cache L312MB (shared)15MB (shared)

i5-10400 vs i7-5820K Cores

i5-10400 i7-5820K
# of Cores66
# of Threads1212
Integrated GraphicsUHD Graphics 630N/A
SMP # CPUs11

i5-10400 vs i7-5820K Features

i5-10400 i7-5820K
MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX AVX2 EIST Intel 64 XD bit VT-x VT-d HTT AES-NI TSX TXT CLMUL FMA3 F16C BMI1 BMI2 Boost 2.0MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX AVX2 EIST Intel 64 XD bit VT-x VT-d HTT AES-NI TSX TXT CLMUL FMA3 F16C BMI1 BMI2 Boost 2.0

i5-10400 vs i7-5820K Notes

i5-10400 i7-5820K

i5-10400 vs i7-5820K Performance

i5-10400 i7-5820K
Base Clock100 MHz100 MHz
Frequency2.9 GHz3.3 GHz
Multiplier29.0x33.0x
Multiplier UnlockedNoNo
TDP65 W140 W
Turbo Clockup to 4.3 GHzup to 3.6 GHz
Voltagevariableunknown

i5-10400 vs i7-5820K Physical

i5-10400 i7-5820K
Die Sizeunknown356 mm²
FoundryIntelIntel
PackageFC-LGA1200
Process Size14 nm22 nm
SocketIntel Socket 1200Intel Socket 2011-3
Transistorsunknown2600 million
tCaseMax72°Cunknown

Compare i5-10400 vs i7-5820K in more games


Discussion and Comments

Share Your Comments