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 $3,198 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $3,358 MSRP).
✅Delivers 933.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 7.9 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $3,358 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 165W, a 100W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon Gold 6150.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon Gold 6150 across 42 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 26,447).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 25 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon Gold 6150, which brings 18 cores / 36 threads.

Xeon Gold 6150

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +16.2% higher average FPS across 42 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+106.3% larger total L3 cache (25 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 18 cores / 36 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 7.9 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($3,358 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌153.8% higher power demand at 165W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Xeon Gold 6150

2017

Why buy it

✅Costs $3,198 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $3,358 MSRP).
✅Delivers 933.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 7.9 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $3,358 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 165W, a 100W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon Gold 6150.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +16.2% higher average FPS across 42 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+106.3% larger total L3 cache (25 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 18 cores / 36 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon Gold 6150 across 42 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 26,447).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 25 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon Gold 6150, which brings 18 cores / 36 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 7.9 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($3,358 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌153.8% higher power demand at 165W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon Gold 6150 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon Gold 6150 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 Gold 6150 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 16.2% more average FPS across 42 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon Gold 6150 is the better fit. You are getting 103% better PassMark, backed by 18 cores and 36 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 106.3% larger total L3 cache (25 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Xeon Gold 6150 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon Gold 6150 is 1998.8% more expensive on MSRP at $3,358 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 16.2% average FPS lead across 42 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 933.9% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 7.9 PassMark/$), 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 2017). 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 Gold 6150 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon Gold 6150
1080p
low	192 FPS	182 FPS
medium	152 FPS	146 FPS
high	123 FPS	119 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	93 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	144 FPS
medium	119 FPS	114 FPS
high	97 FPS	91 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	72 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	67 FPS
medium	70 FPS	56 FPS
high	55 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	35 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon Gold 6150

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon Gold 6150
1080p
low	326 FPS	400 FPS
medium	318 FPS	346 FPS
high	290 FPS	291 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	244 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	346 FPS
medium	292 FPS	307 FPS
high	267 FPS	259 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	216 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	225 FPS
medium	258 FPS	200 FPS
high	235 FPS	180 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	148 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon Gold 6150

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon Gold 6150
1080p
low	326 FPS	661 FPS
medium	326 FPS	661 FPS
high	326 FPS	661 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	655 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	661 FPS
medium	326 FPS	612 FPS
high	326 FPS	580 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	512 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	462 FPS
medium	326 FPS	361 FPS
high	289 FPS	322 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	261 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon Gold 6150

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon Gold 6150
1080p
low	326 FPS	661 FPS
medium	326 FPS	661 FPS
high	326 FPS	661 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	577 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	661 FPS
medium	326 FPS	598 FPS
high	326 FPS	516 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	443 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	469 FPS
medium	326 FPS	421 FPS
high	326 FPS	377 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	327 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon Gold 6150

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon Gold 6150

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 6150

The Xeon Gold 6150 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 18 cores and 36 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 24.75 MB. L2 cache: 18 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 165 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2666. Passmark benchmark score: 26,447 points. Launch price was $3,358.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon Gold 6150 offers 18 cores / 36 threads — the Xeon Gold 6150 has 12 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3.7 GHz on the Xeon Gold 6150 — a 15% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.7 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon Gold 6150 uses Skylake (server) (2017−2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon Gold 6150's 26,447 — a 68% lead for the Xeon Gold 6150. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 24.75 MB on the Xeon Gold 6150.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon Gold 6150
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	18 / 36+200%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+16%	3.7 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+7%	2.7 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	24.75 MB+106%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	18 MB+7100%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Skylake (server) (2017−2018)
PassMark	13,029	26,447+103%
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 Gold 6150 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon Gold 6150
Socket	LGA1200	LGA3647
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 Gold 6150). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon Gold 6150
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 Gold 6150 debuted at $3358. On MSRP ($160 vs $3358), the Core i5-10400F is $3198 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 7.9 pts/$ for the Xeon Gold 6150 — making the Core i5-10400F the 164.7% better value option.