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 $202 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $362 MSRP).
✅Delivers 72.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 47.2 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $362 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E-2378.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E-2378 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 9,986).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E-2378, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 20 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E-2378

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +24.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads, plus 20 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅25% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 47.2 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($362 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Xeon E-2378

2021

Why buy it

✅Costs $202 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $362 MSRP).
✅Delivers 72.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 47.2 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $362 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E-2378.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +24.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads, plus 20 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅25% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E-2378 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 9,986).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E-2378, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 20 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 47.2 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($362 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E-2378 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon E-2378 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 E-2378 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 24.9% 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 E-2378 is the better fit. You are getting 72.7% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Xeon E-2378 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon E-2378 is 126.3% more expensive on MSRP at $362 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 24.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 72.7% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 47.2 PassMark/$), 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 E-2378 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2021 vs 2020), 33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB), more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 16 threads instead of 6/12, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

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 E-2378 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E-2378
1080p
low	192 FPS	287 FPS
medium	152 FPS	257 FPS
high	123 FPS	218 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	187 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	235 FPS
medium	119 FPS	189 FPS
high	97 FPS	156 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	137 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	164 FPS
medium	70 FPS	134 FPS
high	55 FPS	104 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	91 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E-2378

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E-2378
1080p
low	326 FPS	427 FPS
medium	318 FPS	427 FPS
high	290 FPS	407 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	362 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	427 FPS
medium	292 FPS	412 FPS
high	267 FPS	359 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	309 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	351 FPS
medium	258 FPS	294 FPS
high	235 FPS	272 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	235 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E-2378

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E-2378
1080p
low	326 FPS	427 FPS
medium	326 FPS	427 FPS
high	326 FPS	427 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	427 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	427 FPS
medium	326 FPS	427 FPS
high	326 FPS	427 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	427 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	427 FPS
medium	326 FPS	427 FPS
high	289 FPS	399 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	332 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E-2378

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E-2378
1080p
low	326 FPS	427 FPS
medium	326 FPS	427 FPS
high	326 FPS	427 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	427 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	427 FPS
medium	326 FPS	427 FPS
high	326 FPS	427 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	427 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	427 FPS
medium	326 FPS	427 FPS
high	326 FPS	427 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	427 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E-2378

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon E-2378

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 E-2378

The Xeon E-2378 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Rocket Lake-E (2021) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1200. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 17,069 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon E-2378 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Xeon E-2378 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.8 GHz on the Xeon E-2378 — a 11% clock advantage for the Xeon E-2378 (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E-2378 uses Rocket Lake-E (2021) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon E-2378's 17,069 — a 26.8% lead for the Xeon E-2378. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,821, a 22.4% lead for the Xeon E-2378 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 9,986 (53.3% advantage for the Xeon E-2378). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 16 MB (total) on the Xeon E-2378.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E-2378
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 16+33%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	4.8 GHz+12%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+12%	2.6 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	16 MB (total)+33%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512K (per core)+100%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Rocket Lake-E (2021)
PassMark	13,029	17,069+31%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	1,821+25%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	9,986+73%

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the LGA1200 socket with PCIe 3.0. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. Both support up to 128 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 20 (Xeon E-2378) — the Xeon E-2378 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and C252,C256 (Xeon E-2378).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E-2378
Socket	LGA1200	LGA1200
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-3200
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	128 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	20+25%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Xeon E-2378 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs Yes (Xeon E-2378). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E-2378
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	Yes
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Xeon E-2378 debuted at $362. On MSRP ($160 vs $362), the Core i5-10400F is $202 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 47.2 pts/$ for the Xeon E-2378 — making the Core i5-10400F the 53.3% better value option.