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: +12.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $113 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $273 MSRP).
✅Delivers 135.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 34.5 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $273 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 95W, a 30W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) 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 E5-4620 v2, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.

Xeon E5-4620 v2

2014

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.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (9,424 vs 13,029).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 34.5 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($273 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌46.2% higher power demand at 95W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Xeon E5-4620 v2

2014

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $113 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $273 MSRP).
✅Delivers 135.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 34.5 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $273 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 95W, a 30W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

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.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 20 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-4620 v2, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (9,424 vs 13,029).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 34.5 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($273 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌46.2% higher power demand at 95W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-10400F better than Xeon E5-4620 v2?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon E5-4620 v2 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 12.7% 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, Core i5-10400F is the better fit. You are getting 38.3% 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 $113 cheaper on MSRP at $160 MSRP versus $273 MSRP, and it gives you a 12.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 135.9% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 34.5 PassMark/$), 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 2014) 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 E5-4620 v2 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E5-4620 v2
1080p
low	192 FPS	169 FPS
medium	152 FPS	134 FPS
high	123 FPS	109 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	87 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	138 FPS
medium	119 FPS	108 FPS
high	97 FPS	86 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	68 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	65 FPS
medium	70 FPS	55 FPS
high	55 FPS	43 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	34 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E5-4620 v2

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E5-4620 v2
1080p
low	326 FPS	236 FPS
medium	318 FPS	236 FPS
high	290 FPS	236 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	199 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	236 FPS
medium	292 FPS	236 FPS
high	267 FPS	218 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	175 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	185 FPS
medium	258 FPS	166 FPS
high	235 FPS	141 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	112 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E5-4620 v2

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E5-4620 v2
1080p
low	326 FPS	236 FPS
medium	326 FPS	236 FPS
high	326 FPS	236 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	236 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	236 FPS
medium	326 FPS	236 FPS
high	326 FPS	236 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	236 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	236 FPS
medium	326 FPS	236 FPS
high	289 FPS	236 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	236 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E5-4620 v2

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E5-4620 v2
1080p
low	326 FPS	236 FPS
medium	326 FPS	236 FPS
high	326 FPS	236 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	236 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	236 FPS
medium	326 FPS	236 FPS
high	326 FPS	236 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	236 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	236 FPS
medium	326 FPS	236 FPS
high	326 FPS	236 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	236 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E5-4620 v2

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon E5-4620 v2

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 E5-4620 v2

The Xeon E5-4620 v2 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB Intel® Smart Cache. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333, DDR3-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 9,424 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon E5-4620 v2 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Xeon E5-4620 v2 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3 GHz on the Xeon E5-4620 v2 — a 35.6% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The Core i5-10400F is built on the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture. In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon E5-4620 v2's 9,424 — a 32.1% lead for the Core i5-10400F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 20 MB Intel® Smart Cache on the Xeon E5-4620 v2.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E5-4620 v2
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 16+33%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+43%	3 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+12%	2.6 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	20 MB Intel® Smart Cache+67%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	—
Process	14 nm-36%	22 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	—
PassMark	13,029+38%	9,424
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 E5-4620 v2 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E5-4620 v2
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 E5-4620 v2). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E5-4620 v2
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 E5-4620 v2 debuted at $273. On MSRP ($160 vs $273), the Core i5-10400F is $113 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 34.5 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-4620 v2 — making the Core i5-10400F the 80.9% better value option.