
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

Xeon Gold 6148
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
- ✅Costs $2,912 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $3,072 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 762.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 9.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $3,072 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 150W, a 85W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon Gold 6148.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon Gold 6148 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 18,500).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 28 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon Gold 6148, which brings 20 cores / 40 threads and 48 PCIe lanes.
Xeon Gold 6148
2017Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +12.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+129.2% larger total L3 cache (28 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 20 cores / 40 threads, plus 48 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅200% more PCIe lanes (48 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($3,072 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌130.8% higher power demand at 150W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020Xeon Gold 6148
2017Why buy it
- ✅Costs $2,912 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $3,072 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 762.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 9.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $3,072 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 150W, a 85W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon Gold 6148.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +12.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+129.2% larger total L3 cache (28 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 20 cores / 40 threads, plus 48 PCIe lanes vs 16.
- ✅200% more PCIe lanes (48 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon Gold 6148 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 18,500).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 28 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon Gold 6148, which brings 20 cores / 40 threads and 48 PCIe lanes.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($3,072 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌130.8% higher power demand at 150W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Xeon Gold 6148 better than Core i5-10400F?
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 Gold 6148 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 186 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 151 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 123 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 96 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 146 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 115 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 92 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 72 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 68 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 57 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 45 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 36 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Xeon Gold 6148 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 397 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 345 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 287 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 241 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 344 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 306 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 256 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 212 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 225 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 200 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 177 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 145 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Xeon Gold 6148 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 726 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 726 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 726 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 648 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 705 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 605 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 573 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 506 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 455 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 357 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 318 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 259 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Xeon Gold 6148 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 726 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 726 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 663 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 576 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 682 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 598 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 516 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 442 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 469 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 421 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 377 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 327 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon Gold 6148

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 Gold 6148
Xeon Gold 6148
The Xeon Gold 6148 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 25 April 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (server) (2017−2018) architecture. It features 20 cores and 40 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 27.5 MB. L2 cache: 20 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 150 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2666. Passmark benchmark score: 29,021 points. Launch price was $3,072.
Processing Power
The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon Gold 6148 offers 20 cores / 40 threads — the Xeon Gold 6148 has 14 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.7 GHz on the Xeon Gold 6148 — a 15% 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 Gold 6148 uses Skylake (server) (2017−2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon Gold 6148's 29,021 — a 76.1% lead for the Xeon Gold 6148. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 18,500 (77.2% advantage for the Xeon Gold 6148). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,254, a 14.8% lead for the Core i5-10400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 9,445 (48.1% advantage for the Xeon Gold 6148). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 27.5 MB on the Xeon Gold 6148.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Xeon Gold 6148 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 20 / 40+233% |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz+16% | 3.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz+21% | 2.4 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 27.5 MB+129% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 20 MB+7900% |
| Process | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | Skylake (server) (2017−2018) |
| PassMark | 13,029 | 29,021+123% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 8,191 | 18,500+126% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,454+16% | 1,254 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 5,783 | 9,445+63% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon Gold 6148 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. The Xeon Gold 6148 supports up to 768 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 142.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 6 (Xeon Gold 6148). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 48 (Xeon Gold 6148) — the Xeon Gold 6148 offers 32 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and C620 (Xeon Gold 6148).
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Xeon Gold 6148 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | LGA3647 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2666 | DDR4-2666 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB | 768 GB+500% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 6+200% |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 48+200% |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon Gold 6148 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon Gold 6148). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Xeon Gold 6148 targets Legacy Enterprise Workloads. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Xeon Gold 6148 rivals EPYC 7401.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Xeon Gold 6148 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d, EPT |
| Target Use | Gaming | Legacy Enterprise Workloads |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Xeon Gold 6148 debuted at $3072. On MSRP ($160 vs $3072), the Core i5-10400F is $2912 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 9.4 pts/$ for the Xeon Gold 6148 — making the Core i5-10400F the 158.4% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Xeon Gold 6148 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $160-95% | $3072 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.4+766% | 9.4 |
| Release Date | 2020 | 2017 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












