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

✅Better for gaming: +55.2% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $257 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Delivers 266.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 22.2 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 85W, a 20W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E5-2620 v4.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 20 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2620 v4, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-2620 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅150% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (9,255 vs 13,029).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 22.2 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($417 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌30.8% higher power demand at 85W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Xeon E5-2620 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +55.2% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $257 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Delivers 266.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 22.2 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 85W, a 20W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E5-2620 v4.

Why buy it

✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅150% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 20 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2620 v4, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (9,255 vs 13,029).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 22.2 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($417 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌30.8% higher power demand at 85W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-10400F better than Xeon E5-2620 v4?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon E5-2620 v4 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, Core i5-10400F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 55.2% more average FPS across 3 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-10400F is the better fit. You are getting 40.8% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads.

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

Core i5-10400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-10400F is $257 cheaper on MSRP at $160 MSRP versus $417 MSRP, and it gives you a 55.2% average FPS lead across 3 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 266.9% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 22.2 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

Core i5-10400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2016) and more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 12 threads instead of 8/16. 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 E5-2620 v4 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E5-2620 v4
1080p
low	192 FPS	158 FPS
medium	152 FPS	137 FPS
high	123 FPS	109 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	90 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	133 FPS
medium	119 FPS	112 FPS
high	97 FPS	88 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	71 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	62 FPS
medium	70 FPS	56 FPS
high	55 FPS	43 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	34 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E5-2620 v4

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E5-2620 v4
1080p
low	326 FPS	188 FPS
medium	318 FPS	170 FPS
high	290 FPS	147 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	121 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	162 FPS
medium	292 FPS	149 FPS
high	267 FPS	129 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	105 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	106 FPS
medium	258 FPS	97 FPS
high	235 FPS	86 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	68 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E5-2620 v4

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E5-2620 v4
1080p
low	326 FPS	231 FPS
medium	326 FPS	231 FPS
high	326 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	231 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	231 FPS
medium	326 FPS	231 FPS
high	326 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	231 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	231 FPS
medium	326 FPS	231 FPS
high	289 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	231 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E5-2620 v4

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E5-2620 v4
1080p
low	326 FPS	231 FPS
medium	326 FPS	231 FPS
high	326 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	231 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	231 FPS
medium	326 FPS	231 FPS
high	326 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	231 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	231 FPS
medium	326 FPS	231 FPS
high	326 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	231 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E5-2620 v4

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon E5-2620 v4

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 E5-2620 v4

The Xeon E5-2620 v4 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 June 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 85 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 9,255 points. Launch price was $417.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon E5-2620 v4 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Xeon E5-2620 v4 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3 GHz on the Xeon E5-2620 v4 — a 35.6% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5-2620 v4 uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon E5-2620 v4's 9,255 — a 33.9% lead for the Core i5-10400F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 20 MB on the Xeon E5-2620 v4.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E5-2620 v4
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 16+33%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+43%	3 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+38%	2.1 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	20 MB+67%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	2 MB+700%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	13,029+41%	9,255
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 E5-2620 v4 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. The Xeon E5-2620 v4 supports up to 1536 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 169.2% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 4 (Xeon E5-2620 v4). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 40 (Xeon E5-2620 v4) — the Xeon E5-2620 v4 offers 24 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and Intel X99,Intel C612 (Xeon E5-2620 v4).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E5-2620 v4
Socket	LGA1200	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2133
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	1536 GB+1100%
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	40+150%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) / not specified (Xeon E5-2620 v4). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E5-2620 v4
Integrated GPU	No	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 E5-2620 v4 debuted at $417. On MSRP ($160 vs $417), the Core i5-10400F is $257 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 22.2 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2620 v4 — making the Core i5-10400F the 114.3% better value option.