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 E-2378 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 E-2378: 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 $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.

Quick Answers

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

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E-2378 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 E-2378 is the better pick. 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 stronger fit. You are getting 72.7% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also has 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 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Xeon E-2378 comes in 126.3% more expensive on MSRP at $362 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it still gives you a 24.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 72.7% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 47.2 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

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

Xeon E-2378 makes more sense long term 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 is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i5-10400F vs Xeon E-2378 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 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. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR4-3200 on the Xeon E-2378 — the Xeon E-2378 supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. 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+20%
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

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

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E-2378
MSRP	$160-56%	$362
Performance per Dollar	81.4+72%	47.2
Release Date	2020	2021

Search Core i5-10400F on Amazon

Search Xeon E-2378 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.