
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

Xeon E5-2640 v4
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
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
2020Why buy it
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 90W, a 25W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E5-2640 v4.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 25 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2640 v4, which brings 10 cores / 20 threads.
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Xeon E5-2640 v4 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
Xeon E5-2640 v4
2016Why buy it
- ✅+108.3% larger total L3 cache (25 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 10 cores / 20 threads.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (12,470 vs 13,029).
- ❌38.5% higher power demand at 90W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020Xeon E5-2640 v4
2016Why buy it
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 90W, a 25W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E5-2640 v4.
Why buy it
- ✅+108.3% larger total L3 cache (25 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 10 cores / 20 threads.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 25 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2640 v4, which brings 10 cores / 20 threads.
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Xeon E5-2640 v4 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (12,470 vs 13,029).
- ❌38.5% higher power demand at 90W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i5-10400F better than Xeon E5-2640 v4?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Xeon E5-2640 v4 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 160 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 140 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 113 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 93 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 135 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 115 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 89 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 73 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 63 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 57 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 44 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 35 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Xeon E5-2640 v4 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 290 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 253 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 208 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 278 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 254 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 222 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 181 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 180 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 164 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 144 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 114 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Xeon E5-2640 v4 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 312 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 279 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Xeon E5-2640 v4 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 312 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon E5-2640 v4

Core i5-10400F
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 E5-2640 v4
Xeon E5-2640 v4
The Xeon E5-2640 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 10 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 25 MB. L2 cache: 2.5 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 90 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 12,470 points. Launch price was $939.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon E5-2640 v4 offers 10 cores / 20 threads — the Xeon E5-2640 v4 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.4 GHz on the Xeon E5-2640 v4 — a 23.4% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5-2640 v4 uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon E5-2640 v4's 12,470 — a 4.4% lead for the Core i5-10400F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 25 MB on the Xeon E5-2640 v4.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Xeon E5-2640 v4 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 10 / 20+67% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz+26% | 3.4 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz+21% | 2.4 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 25 MB+108% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 2.5 MB+900% |
| Process | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | Broadwell (2015−2019) |
| PassMark | 13,029+4% | 12,470 |
| 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 E5-2640 v4 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Xeon E5-2640 v4 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | LGA2011 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 5.0+67% |
| 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 E5-2640 v4). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Xeon E5-2640 v4 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | — |
| Target Use | Gaming | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












