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 $2,731 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $2,891 MSRP).
✅Delivers 988.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 7.5 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $2,891 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 145W, a 80W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E5-2697A v4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-2697A v4 across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 21,621).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 40 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2697A v4, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads.

Xeon E5-2697A v4

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +45.6% higher average FPS across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+233.3% larger total L3 cache (40 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 7.5 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($2,891 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌123.1% higher power demand at 145W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Xeon E5-2697A v4

2016

Why buy it

✅Costs $2,731 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $2,891 MSRP).
✅Delivers 988.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 7.5 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $2,891 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 145W, a 80W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E5-2697A v4.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +45.6% higher average FPS across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+233.3% larger total L3 cache (40 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-2697A v4 across 6 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 21,621).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 40 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2697A v4, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 7.5 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($2,891 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌123.1% higher power demand at 145W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5-2697A v4 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon E5-2697A 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, Xeon E5-2697A v4 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 45.6% more average FPS across 6 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E5-2697A v4 is the better fit. You are getting 65.9% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 233.3% larger total L3 cache (40 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Xeon E5-2697A v4 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon E5-2697A v4 is 1706.9% more expensive on MSRP at $2,891 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 45.6% average FPS lead across 6 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 988.8% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 7.5 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Core i5-10400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2016). That makes it the safer long-term pick.

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 E5-2697A v4 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E5-2697A v4
1080p
low	192 FPS	182 FPS
medium	152 FPS	158 FPS
high	123 FPS	126 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	101 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	152 FPS
medium	119 FPS	128 FPS
high	97 FPS	99 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	80 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	69 FPS
medium	70 FPS	62 FPS
high	55 FPS	48 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	39 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E5-2697A v4

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E5-2697A v4
1080p
low	326 FPS	364 FPS
medium	318 FPS	330 FPS
high	290 FPS	279 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	224 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	313 FPS
medium	292 FPS	284 FPS
high	267 FPS	242 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	188 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	195 FPS
medium	258 FPS	178 FPS
high	235 FPS	153 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	120 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E5-2697A v4

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E5-2697A v4
1080p
low	326 FPS	541 FPS
medium	326 FPS	541 FPS
high	326 FPS	541 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	541 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	541 FPS
medium	326 FPS	541 FPS
high	326 FPS	541 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	532 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	466 FPS
medium	326 FPS	379 FPS
high	289 FPS	345 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	289 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E5-2697A v4

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E5-2697A v4
1080p
low	326 FPS	541 FPS
medium	326 FPS	541 FPS
high	326 FPS	541 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	541 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	541 FPS
medium	326 FPS	541 FPS
high	326 FPS	541 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	497 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	541 FPS
medium	326 FPS	515 FPS
high	326 FPS	455 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	381 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E5-2697A v4

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon E5-2697A 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 E5-2697A v4

The Xeon E5-2697A 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 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 40 MB. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 145 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 21,621 points. Launch price was $2,891.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon E5-2697A v4 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Xeon E5-2697A v4 has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.6 GHz on the Xeon E5-2697A v4 — a 17.7% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5-2697A v4 uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon E5-2697A v4's 21,621 — a 49.6% lead for the Xeon E5-2697A v4. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 40 MB on the Xeon E5-2697A v4.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E5-2697A v4
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	16 / 32+167%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+19%	3.6 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+12%	2.6 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	40 MB+233%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	4 MB+1500%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	13,029	21,621+66%
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 E5-2697A v4 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E5-2697A v4
Socket	LGA1200	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
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 E5-2697A v4). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E5-2697A v4
Integrated GPU	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 E5-2697A v4 debuted at $2891. On MSRP ($160 vs $2891), the Core i5-10400F is $2731 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 7.5 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2697A v4 — making the Core i5-10400F the 166.4% better value option.