Core i7-10875H vs Core i5-10400F
Aggregated performance score
Core i7-10875H outperforms Core i5-10400F by a moderate 14% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i5-10400F and Core i7-10875H processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 829 | 727 |
| Place by popularity | 11 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 48.54 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Comet Lake |
| Architecture codename | Comet Lake (2020) | Comet Lake-H (2020) |
| Release date | 30 April 2020 (4 years ago) | 2 April 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $155 | $450 |
| Current price | $100 (0.6x MSRP) | $2012 (4.5x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core i5-10400F and Core i7-10875H 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 cores | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 12 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 2.9 GHz | 2.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.3 GHz | 4.9 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 12 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 72 °C | 72 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core i5-10400F and Core i7-10875H 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 configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA1200 | FCBGA1440 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 45 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-10400F and Core i7-10875H. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | + |
| TSX | - | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| SIPP | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | - | + |
| Status | Launched | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Core i5-10400F and Core i7-10875H technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | + | + |
| Identity Protection | + | + |
| SGX | Yes with Intel® ME | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-10400F and Core i7-10875H are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-10400F and Core i7-10875H. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 128 GB | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 41.6 GB/s | 45.8 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel® UHD Graphics for 10th Gen Intel® Processors |
| Quick Sync Video | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.2 GHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i5-10400F and Core i7-10875H integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| DVI | no data | + |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Core i5-10400F and Core i7-10875H integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096 x 2304@30Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4096 x 2304@60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 4096 x 2304@60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Core i5-10400F and Core i7-10875H integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-10400F and Core i7-10875H.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 16 |
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.
Core i7-10875H outperforms Core i5-10400F by 14% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Core i7-10875H outperforms Core i5-10400F by 14% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Core i7-10875H outperforms Core i5-10400F by 5% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Core i7-10875H outperforms Core i5-10400F by 14% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
Core i7-10875H outperforms Core i5-10400F by 16% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Core i7-10875H outperforms Core i5-10400F by 23% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Core i7-10875H outperforms Core i5-10400F by 30% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
Core i7-10875H outperforms Core i5-10400F by 20% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
Core i7-10875H outperforms Core i5-10400F by 12% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Core i7-10875H outperforms Core i5-10400F by 18% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.
x264 encoding pass 1
x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Core i7-10875H outperforms Core i5-10400F by 6% in x264 encoding pass 1.
x264 encoding pass 2
x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Core i7-10875H outperforms Core i5-10400F by 27% in x264 encoding pass 2.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.42 | 9.64 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 8 |
| Threads | 12 | 16 |
| Cost | $155 | $450 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 45 Watt |
The Core i7-10875H is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-10400F in performance tests.
Note that Core i5-10400F is a desktop processor while Core i7-10875H is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-10400F and Core i7-10875H, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
