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 $6,681 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $6,841 MSRP).
✅Delivers 874.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 8.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $6,841 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 155W, a 90W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E7-8895 v2.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E7-8895 v2 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 57,165).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 38 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E7-8895 v2, which brings 15 cores / 30 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E7-8895 v2

2014

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +18.7% higher average FPS across 50 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 40 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅150% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($6,841 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌138.5% higher power demand at 155W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Xeon E7-8895 v2

2014

Why buy it

✅Costs $6,681 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $6,841 MSRP).
✅Delivers 874.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 8.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $6,841 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 155W, a 90W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E7-8895 v2.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +18.7% higher average FPS across 50 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 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 Xeon E7-8895 v2 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 57,165).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 38 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E7-8895 v2, which brings 15 cores / 30 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($6,841 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌138.5% higher power demand at 155W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E7-8895 v2 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon E7-8895 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, Xeon E7-8895 v2 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 18.7% 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, Xeon E7-8895 v2 is the better fit. You are getting 338.8% better PassMark, backed by 15 cores and 30 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 212.5% larger total L3 cache (38 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Xeon E7-8895 v2 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon E7-8895 v2 is 4175.6% more expensive on MSRP at $6,841 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 18.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 874.5% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 8.4 PassMark/$), 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 2014). 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 E7-8895 v2 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E7-8895 v2
1080p
low	192 FPS	191 FPS
medium	152 FPS	153 FPS
high	123 FPS	123 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	96 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	157 FPS
medium	119 FPS	122 FPS
high	97 FPS	95 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	76 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	72 FPS
medium	70 FPS	60 FPS
high	55 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	38 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E7-8895 v2

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E7-8895 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 E7-8895 v2

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E7-8895 v2
1080p
low	326 FPS	927 FPS
medium	326 FPS	806 FPS
high	326 FPS	763 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	678 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	744 FPS
medium	326 FPS	638 FPS
high	326 FPS	604 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 E7-8895 v2

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E7-8895 v2
1080p
low	326 FPS	1105 FPS
medium	326 FPS	983 FPS
high	326 FPS	833 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	703 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	887 FPS
medium	326 FPS	764 FPS
high	326 FPS	644 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	536 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	645 FPS
medium	326 FPS	563 FPS
high	326 FPS	485 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	407 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon E7-8895 v2

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon E7-8895 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 E7-8895 v2

The Xeon E7-8895 v2 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2014-02-01. It features 15 cores and 30 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 37.5 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCLGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 155 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333, DDR3-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 57,165 points. Launch price was $6,841.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon E7-8895 v2 offers 15 cores / 30 threads — the Xeon E7-8895 v2 has 9 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.6 GHz on the Xeon E7-8895 v2 — a 17.7% 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 E7-8895 v2's 57,165 — a 125.8% lead for the Xeon E7-8895 v2. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 37.5 MB on the Xeon E7-8895 v2.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E7-8895 v2
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	15 / 30+150%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+19%	3.6 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	57,165+339%
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 E7-8895 v2 uses FCLGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus 1600 on the Xeon E7-8895 v2 — the Xeon E7-8895 v2 supports 199% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon E7-8895 v2 supports up to 1536 of RAM compared to 128 GB — 169.2% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 4 (Xeon E7-8895 v2). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 40 (Xeon E7-8895 v2) — the Xeon E7-8895 v2 offers 24 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and C602-J (Xeon E7-8895 v2).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E7-8895 v2
Socket	LGA1200	FCLGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	1600+39900%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+8738033%	1536
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	40+150%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Xeon E7-8895 v2 rivals AMD Opteron 6386 SE.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon E7-8895 v2
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Xeon E7-8895 v2 debuted at $6841. On MSRP ($160 vs $6841), the Core i5-10400F is $6681 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 8.4 pts/$ for the Xeon E7-8895 v2 — making the Core i5-10400F the 162.8% better value option.