PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Why buy it

✅Costs $121 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $281 MSRP).
✅Delivers 40.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 58.2 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $281 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon 6325P.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon 6325P across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 16,346).
❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Xeon 6325P moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Xeon 6325P

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.4% higher average FPS across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 58.2 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($281 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Xeon 6325P

2025

Why buy it

✅Costs $121 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $281 MSRP).
✅Delivers 40.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 58.2 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $281 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon 6325P.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.4% higher average FPS across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon 6325P across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 16,346).
❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Xeon 6325P moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 58.2 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($281 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon 6325P better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon 6325P makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-10400F is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon 6325P is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 8.4% more average FPS across 49 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon 6325P is the better fit. You are getting 25.5% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Xeon 6325P is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon 6325P is 75.6% more expensive on MSRP at $281 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 8.4% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 40.0% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 58.2 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Xeon 6325P is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2020), a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200, and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 8 threads instead of 6/12. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core i5-10400F Benchmark Check

Xeon 6325P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon 6325P
1080p
low	192 FPS	257 FPS
medium	152 FPS	232 FPS
high	123 FPS	194 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	167 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	230 FPS
medium	119 FPS	189 FPS
high	97 FPS	153 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	135 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	159 FPS
medium	70 FPS	133 FPS
high	55 FPS	102 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	90 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon 6325P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon 6325P
1080p
low	326 FPS	327 FPS
medium	318 FPS	270 FPS
high	290 FPS	243 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	207 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	273 FPS
medium	292 FPS	233 FPS
high	267 FPS	215 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	181 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	204 FPS
medium	258 FPS	178 FPS
high	235 FPS	153 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	125 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon 6325P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon 6325P
1080p
low	326 FPS	409 FPS
medium	326 FPS	409 FPS
high	326 FPS	409 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	409 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	409 FPS
medium	326 FPS	409 FPS
high	326 FPS	409 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	409 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	409 FPS
medium	326 FPS	409 FPS
high	289 FPS	371 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	312 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon 6325P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon 6325P
1080p
low	326 FPS	409 FPS
medium	326 FPS	409 FPS
high	326 FPS	409 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	409 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	409 FPS
medium	326 FPS	409 FPS
high	326 FPS	409 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	409 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	409 FPS
medium	326 FPS	409 FPS
high	326 FPS	409 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	357 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon 6325P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon 6325P

Core i5-10400F

The Core i5-10400F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 April 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 4.3 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1200. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 13,029 points. Launch price was $155.

Xeon 6325P

The Xeon 6325P is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 February 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Raptor Lake-R (2023−2025) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 16,346 points. Launch price was $281.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon 6325P offers 4 cores / 8 threads — the Core i5-10400F has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.8 GHz on the Xeon 6325P — a 11% clock advantage for the Xeon 6325P (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon 6325P uses Raptor Lake-R (2023−2025) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon 6325P's 16,346 — a 22.6% lead for the Xeon 6325P. Both processors carry 12 MB (total) of L3 cache.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon 6325P
Cores / Threads	6 / 12+50%	4 / 8
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	4.8 GHz+12%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.5 GHz+21%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	12 MB (total)
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	1.25 MB (per core)+400%
Process	14 nm	Intel 7 nm-50%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Raptor Lake-R (2023−2025)
PassMark	13,029	16,346+25%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon 6325P uses LGA1700 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon 6325P
Socket	LGA1200	LGA1700
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	—
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) / not specified (Xeon 6325P). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon 6325P
Integrated GPU	No	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	—
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Xeon 6325P debuted at $281. On MSRP ($160 vs $281), the Core i5-10400F is $121 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 58.2 pts/$ for the Xeon 6325P — making the Core i5-10400F the 33.3% better value option.