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.

Core i5-10400F vs Xeon 6517P FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core i5-10400F vs Xeon 6517P: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,035 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,195 MSRP).
✅Delivers 99.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 40.8 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,195 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 190W, a 125W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon 6517P.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon 6517P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 48,810).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 72 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon 6517P, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 88 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Xeon 6517P moves to LGA4710 and DDR5.

Xeon 6517P

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +35.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+500% larger total L3 cache (72 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 88 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅Newer platform on LGA4710 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
✅450% more PCIe lanes (88 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 40.8 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,195 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌192.3% higher power demand at 190W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon 6517P better than Core i5-10400F?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon 6517P makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-10400F is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon 6517P is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 35.9% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon 6517P is the stronger fit. You are getting 274.6% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 500% larger total L3 cache (72 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Xeon 6517P is still the much better call for a fresh build. Xeon 6517P comes in 646.9% more expensive on MSRP at $1,195 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it still gives you a 35.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2020 platform. Even with 99.4% better value on paper (81.4 vs 40.8 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1200.

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

Xeon 6517P makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2020), a healthier platform with LGA4710 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200, 500% larger total L3 cache (72 MB vs 12 MB), more multi-core headroom with 16 cores / 32 threads instead of 6/12, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

Core i5-10400F vs Xeon 6517P Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

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 6517P

The Xeon 6517P is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 February 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Granite Rapids (2024−2025) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L3 cache: 72 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4710. Thermal design power (TDP): 190 Watt. Memory support: DDR5(6400MT/s). Passmark benchmark score: 48,810 points. Launch price was $1,195.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon 6517P offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Xeon 6517P has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.2 GHz on the Xeon 6517P — a 2.4% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon 6517P uses Granite Rapids (2024−2025) (Intel 3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon 6517P's 48,810 — a 115.7% lead for the Xeon 6517P. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 72 MB (total) on the Xeon 6517P.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon 6517P
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	16 / 32+167%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+2%	4.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.2 GHz+10%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	72 MB (total)+500%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+12700%	2 MB (per core)
Process	14 nm	Intel 3 nm-79%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Granite Rapids (2024−2025)
PassMark	13,029	48,810+275%
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 6517P uses LGA4710 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus 6400 on the Xeon 6517P — the Xeon 6517P supports 140.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon 6517P supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 3100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 8 (Xeon 6517P). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 88 (Xeon 6517P) — the Xeon 6517P offers 72 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and Granite Rapids-SP (Xeon 6517P).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon 6517P
Socket	LGA1200	LGA4710
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	6400+140%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	4096 GB+3100%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	88+450%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon 6517P supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Xeon 6517P rivals EPYC 9554.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon 6517P
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i5-10400F was priced at $160, while the Xeon 6517P came in at $1195. On launch pricing ($160 vs $1195), Core i5-10400F was $1035 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 40.8 pts/$ for the Xeon 6517P — making the Core i5-10400F the 66.4% better value option.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon 6517P
MSRP	$160-87%	$1195
Performance per Dollar	81.4+100%	40.8
Release Date	2020	2025

Search Core i5-10400F on Amazon

Search Xeon 6517P on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.