Key Differences
In short — Core i5-10400F outperforms the cheaper FX-8150 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing FX-8150 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i5-10400F is 3123 days newer than the cheaper FX-8150.
Advantages of Intel Core i5-10400F
- Performs up to 13% better in Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than FX-8150 - 188 vs 167 FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than AMD FX-8150 - 65 vs 125 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8150 - 12 vs 8 threads
Advantages of AMD FX-8150
- Up to 43% cheaper than Core i5-10400F - $64.03 vs $112.53
- Up to 37% better value when playing Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Core i5-10400F - $0.38 vs $0.6 per FPS
Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
188
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.6/FPS
63.33333333333334%
Price, $
$112.53
56%
FPS Winner
Buy for $112.53 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 349402 minutes ago
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
FPS
167
88.82978723404256%
Value, $/FPS
$0.38/FPS
100%
Price, $
$64.03
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $64.03 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 349401 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i5-10400F | vs | AMD FX-8150 |
---|---|---|
Apr 30th, 2020 | Release Date | Oct 12th, 2011 |
Core i5 | Collection | FX |
Comet Lake | Codename | Zambezi |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 8 |
12 | Threads | 8 |
2.9 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
4.3 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.9 GHz |
65 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
29.0x | Multiplier | 18.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |