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 $2,284 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $2,444 MSRP).
✅Delivers 496.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 13.6 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $2,444 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 165W, a 100W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon Gold 6240R.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon Gold 6240R across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 22,500).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 36 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon Gold 6240R, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 48 PCIe lanes.

Xeon Gold 6240R

2020

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +18.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+197.9% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 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 13.6 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($2,444 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 6240R

2020

Why buy it

✅Costs $2,284 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $2,444 MSRP).
✅Delivers 496.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 13.6 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $2,444 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 165W, a 100W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon Gold 6240R.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +18.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+197.9% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 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 6240R across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 22,500).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 36 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon Gold 6240R, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 48 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.6 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($2,444 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 6240R better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon Gold 6240R 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 6240R is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 18.8% 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 Gold 6240R is the better fit. You are getting 174.7% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 24 cores and 48 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 197.9% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Xeon Gold 6240R is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon Gold 6240R is 1427.5% more expensive on MSRP at $2,444 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 18.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 496.7% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 13.6 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Xeon Gold 6240R is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 197.9% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 12 MB), more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 48 threads instead of 6/12, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. 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 Gold 6240R Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon Gold 6240R
1080p
low	192 FPS	197 FPS
medium	152 FPS	159 FPS
high	123 FPS	129 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	100 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	157 FPS
medium	119 FPS	123 FPS
high	97 FPS	96 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 Gold 6240R

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon Gold 6240R
1080p
low	326 FPS	443 FPS
medium	318 FPS	386 FPS
high	290 FPS	314 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	260 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	383 FPS
medium	292 FPS	336 FPS
high	267 FPS	277 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	221 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	240 FPS
medium	258 FPS	213 FPS
high	235 FPS	188 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	154 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon Gold 6240R

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon Gold 6240R
1080p
low	326 FPS	781 FPS
medium	326 FPS	634 FPS
high	326 FPS	570 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	501 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	606 FPS
medium	326 FPS	499 FPS
high	326 FPS	449 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	391 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	441 FPS
medium	326 FPS	350 FPS
high	289 FPS	308 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	249 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon Gold 6240R

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon Gold 6240R
1080p
low	326 FPS	834 FPS
medium	326 FPS	834 FPS
high	326 FPS	738 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	644 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	744 FPS
medium	326 FPS	654 FPS
high	326 FPS	562 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	488 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	541 FPS
medium	326 FPS	483 FPS
high	326 FPS	424 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	364 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon Gold 6240R

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon Gold 6240R

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 6240R

The Xeon Gold 6240R is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 February 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Cascade Lake (2019−2020) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 35.75 MB. L2 cache: 24 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 165 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 33,353 points. Launch price was $2,200.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon Gold 6240R offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the Xeon Gold 6240R has 18 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4 GHz on the Xeon Gold 6240R — a 7.2% 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 6240R uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon Gold 6240R's 33,353 — a 87.6% lead for the Xeon Gold 6240R. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 22,500 (93.2% advantage for the Xeon Gold 6240R). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,212, a 18.2% lead for the Core i5-10400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 17,218 (99.4% advantage for the Xeon Gold 6240R). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 35.75 MB on the Xeon Gold 6240R.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon Gold 6240R
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	24 / 48+300%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+7%	4 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+21%	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	35.75 MB+198%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	24 MB+9500%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	13,029	33,353+156%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	22,500+175%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454+20%	1,212
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	17,218+198%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon Gold 6240R uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. The Xeon Gold 6240R supports up to 1024 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 155.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 6 (Xeon Gold 6240R). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 48 (Xeon Gold 6240R) — the Xeon Gold 6240R offers 32 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and C621,Lewisburg (Xeon Gold 6240R).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon Gold 6240R
Socket	LGA1200	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2933
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	1024 GB+700%
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	48+200%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon Gold 6240R 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 6240R). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Xeon Gold 6240R targets Server / High-load computing. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Xeon Gold 6240R rivals EPYC 7402.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon Gold 6240R
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d, EPT
Target Use	Gaming	Server / High-load computing

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Xeon Gold 6240R debuted at $2444. On MSRP ($160 vs $2444), the Core i5-10400F is $2284 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 13.6 pts/$ for the Xeon Gold 6240R — making the Core i5-10400F the 142.6% better value option.