i5-10400F vs i7-6560U

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i7-6560U
2015
2 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
2.10
Core i5-10400F
2020
6 cores / 12 threads, 65 Watt
8.20
+290%

Core i5-10400F outperforms Core i7-6560U by a whopping 290% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i7-6560U and Core i5-10400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1885926
Place by popularitynot in top-1009
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data23.90
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Core i7no data
Power efficiency13.2511.94
Architecture codenameSkylake (2015−2016)Comet Lake (2020)
Release date1 September 2015 (9 years ago)30 April 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$155

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core i7-6560U 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 cores2 (Dual-core)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads412
Base clock speed2.2 GHz2.9 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz4.3 GHz
Bus typeOPIno data
Bus rate4 GT/s8 GT/s
Multiplier22no data
L1 cache128 KB64K (per core)
L2 cache512 KB256K (per core)
L3 cache4 MB12 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Maximum core temperature100 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data72 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Core i7-6560U 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketFCBGA1356FCLGA1200
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-6560U and Core i5-10400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
eDRAM64 MBno data
My WiFi+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Flex Memory Access+no data
Smart Response+no data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-

Security technologies

Core i7-6560U and Core i5-10400F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-+
EDB++
Secure Key++
MPX+-
Identity Protection++
SGXYes with Intel® MEYes with Intel® ME
OS Guard++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-6560U and Core i5-10400F are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-d++
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-6560U and Core i5-10400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3, DDR4DDR4
Maximum memory size32 GB128 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth34.134 GB/s41.6 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel Iris Graphics 540no data
Max video memory32 GBno data
Quick Sync Video+-
Clear Video+no data
Clear Video HD+no data
Graphics max frequency1.05 GHzno data
InTru 3D+no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core i7-6560U and Core i5-10400F integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
DVI+no data

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Core i7-6560U and Core i5-10400F integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

4K resolution support+no data
Max resolution over HDMI 1.44096x2304@24Hzno data
Max resolution over eDP4096x2304@60Hzno data
Max resolution over DisplayPort4096x2304@60Hzno data
Max resolution over VGAN/Ano data

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Core i7-6560U and Core i5-10400F integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectX12no data
OpenGL4.5no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-6560U and Core i5-10400F.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes1216

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.

i7-6560U 2.10
i5-10400F 8.20
+290%

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.

i7-6560U 3337
i5-10400F 13029
+290%

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.

i7-6560U 1029
i5-10400F 1455
+41.4%

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.

i7-6560U 2141
i5-10400F 5778
+170%

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.

i7-6560U 5054
i5-10400F 6719
+32.9%

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.

i7-6560U 11205
i5-10400F 36564
+226%

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

i7-6560U 14.56
i5-10400F 6.25
+133%

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.

i7-6560U 3
i5-10400F 14
+317%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

i7-6560U 314
i5-10400F 1332
+324%

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.

i7-6560U 132
i5-10400F 180
+36.4%

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.

i7-6560U 1.52
i5-10400F 2.03
+33.6%

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.  

i7-6560U 20
i5-10400F 81
+299%

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.  

i7-6560U 110
i5-10400F 229
+108%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.10 8.20
Recency 1 September 2015 30 April 2020
Physical cores 2 6
Threads 4 12
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 65 Watt

i7-6560U has 333.3% lower power consumption.

i5-10400F, on the other hand, has a 290.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads.

The Core i5-10400F is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i7-6560U in performance tests.

Be aware that Core i7-6560U is a notebook processor while Core i5-10400F is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-6560U 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.


Intel Core i7-6560U
Core i7-6560U
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.


3.6 23 votes

Rate Core i7-6560U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 13796 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 Core i7-6560U or Core i5-10400F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.