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

✅+26% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅Draws 65W instead of 155W, a 90W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E7-4890 v2.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E7-4890 v2 across 29 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 38 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E7-4890 v2, which brings 15 cores / 30 threads and 32 PCIe lanes.
❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Xeon E7-4890 v2 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Xeon E7-4890 v2

2014

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +20.3% higher average FPS across 29 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+212.5% larger total L3 cache (38 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 15 cores / 30 threads, plus 32 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (32 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (6,500 vs 8,191).
❌138.5% higher power demand at 155W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Xeon E7-4890 v2

2014

Why buy it

✅+26% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅Draws 65W instead of 155W, a 90W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E7-4890 v2.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +20.3% higher average FPS across 29 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+212.5% larger total L3 cache (38 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 15 cores / 30 threads, plus 32 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (32 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E7-4890 v2 across 29 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 38 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E7-4890 v2, which brings 15 cores / 30 threads and 32 PCIe lanes.
❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Xeon E7-4890 v2 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (6,500 vs 8,191).
❌138.5% higher power demand at 155W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-10400F better than Xeon E7-4890 v2?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon E7-4890 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 streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-10400F is the better fit. You are getting 26% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, 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 at an unclear MSRP at $160 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you 26% better Cinebench R23 multi-core. The trade-off is that Xeon E7-4890 v2 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 20.3% average FPS lead across 29 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 15/30. 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 E7-4890 v2 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E7-4890 v2
1080p
low	192 FPS	186 FPS
medium	152 FPS	148 FPS
high	123 FPS	118 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	92 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	153 FPS
medium	119 FPS	119 FPS
high	97 FPS	92 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	73 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	72 FPS
medium	70 FPS	59 FPS
high	55 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	38 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E7-4890 v2

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E7-4890 v2
1080p
low	326 FPS	368 FPS
medium	318 FPS	324 FPS
high	290 FPS	270 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	216 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	318 FPS
medium	292 FPS	282 FPS
high	267 FPS	238 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	184 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	199 FPS
medium	258 FPS	178 FPS
high	235 FPS	152 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	121 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E7-4890 v2

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E7-4890 v2
1080p
low	326 FPS	774 FPS
medium	326 FPS	774 FPS
high	326 FPS	763 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	679 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	744 FPS
medium	326 FPS	638 FPS
high	326 FPS	605 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	537 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	479 FPS
medium	326 FPS	376 FPS
high	289 FPS	335 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	274 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E7-4890 v2

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E7-4890 v2
1080p
low	326 FPS	774 FPS
medium	326 FPS	774 FPS
high	326 FPS	765 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	648 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	774 FPS
medium	326 FPS	686 FPS
high	326 FPS	586 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	493 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	581 FPS
medium	326 FPS	506 FPS
high	326 FPS	442 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	377 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E7-4890 v2

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon E7-4890 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 E7-4890 v2

The Xeon E7-4890 v2 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It features 15 cores and 30 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 37.5 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 155 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333, DDR3-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 30,946 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon E7-4890 v2 offers 15 cores / 30 threads — the Xeon E7-4890 v2 has 9 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.4 GHz on the Xeon E7-4890 v2 — a 23.4% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.8 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 E7-4890 v2's 30,946 — a 81.5% lead for the Xeon E7-4890 v2. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 6,500 (23% advantage for the Core i5-10400F). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 730, a 66.3% lead for the Core i5-10400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 5,500 (5% advantage for the Core i5-10400F). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 37.5 MB on the Xeon E7-4890 v2.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E7-4890 v2
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	15 / 30+150%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+26%	3.4 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+4%	2.8 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	37.5 MB+213%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	—
Process	14 nm-36%	22 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	—
PassMark	13,029	30,946+138%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191+26%	6,500
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454+99%	730
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783+5%	5,500

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E7-4890 v2 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR3-1600 on the Xeon E7-4890 v2 — the Core i5-10400F supports 28.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon E7-4890 v2 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 E7-4890 v2). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 32 (Xeon E7-4890 v2) — the Xeon E7-4890 v2 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and C602 (Xeon E7-4890 v2).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E7-4890 v2
Socket	LGA1200	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666+33%	DDR3-1600
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	1536 GB+1100%
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	32+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon E7-4890 v2). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Xeon E7-4890 v2 targets Enterprise Server (Legacy). Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Xeon E7-4890 v2 rivals Xeon E5-2697 v2.