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

✅Better for gaming: +70.3% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 65W instead of 85W, a 20W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon Silver 4110.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon Silver 4110, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 48 PCIe lanes.
❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Xeon Silver 4110 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Xeon Silver 4110

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads, plus 48 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅200% more PCIe lanes (48 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (10,314 vs 13,029).
❌30.8% higher power demand at 85W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Xeon Silver 4110

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +70.3% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 65W instead of 85W, a 20W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon Silver 4110.

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads, plus 48 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅200% more PCIe lanes (48 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon Silver 4110, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 48 PCIe lanes.
❌Launch MSRP is still $160 MSRP, while Xeon Silver 4110 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-10400F across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (10,314 vs 13,029).
❌30.8% higher power demand at 85W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-10400F better than Xeon Silver 4110?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon Silver 4110 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, Core i5-10400F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 70.3% more average FPS across 2 shared CPU game tests.

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 26.3% better PassMark, 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 $160 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you a 70.3% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 2017) and more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 12 threads instead of 8/16. 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 Silver 4110 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon Silver 4110
1080p
low	192 FPS	169 FPS
medium	152 FPS	134 FPS
high	123 FPS	108 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	87 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	138 FPS
medium	119 FPS	107 FPS
high	97 FPS	85 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	68 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	65 FPS
medium	70 FPS	54 FPS
high	55 FPS	43 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	34 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon Silver 4110

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon Silver 4110
1080p
low	326 FPS	124 FPS
medium	318 FPS	110 FPS
high	290 FPS	103 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	82 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	110 FPS
medium	292 FPS	100 FPS
high	267 FPS	93 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	75 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	91 FPS
medium	258 FPS	84 FPS
high	235 FPS	75 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	58 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon Silver 4110

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon Silver 4110
1080p
low	326 FPS	258 FPS
medium	326 FPS	258 FPS
high	326 FPS	258 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	258 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	258 FPS
medium	326 FPS	258 FPS
high	326 FPS	258 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	258 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	258 FPS
medium	326 FPS	258 FPS
high	289 FPS	258 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	258 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon Silver 4110

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon Silver 4110
1080p
low	326 FPS	258 FPS
medium	326 FPS	258 FPS
high	326 FPS	258 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	258 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	258 FPS
medium	326 FPS	258 FPS
high	326 FPS	258 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	258 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	258 FPS
medium	326 FPS	258 FPS
high	326 FPS	258 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	258 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon Silver 4110

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon Silver 4110

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 Silver 4110

The Xeon Silver 4110 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 11 July 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (server) (2017−2018) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 11 MB. L2 cache: 8 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 85 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 10,314 points. Launch price was $501.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon Silver 4110 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Xeon Silver 4110 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 3 GHz on the Xeon Silver 4110 — a 35.6% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon Silver 4110 uses Skylake (server) (2017−2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon Silver 4110's 10,314 — a 23.3% lead for the Core i5-10400F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 11 MB on the Xeon Silver 4110.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon Silver 4110
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 16+33%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+43%	3 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+38%	2.1 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)+9%	11 MB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	8 MB+3100%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Skylake (server) (2017−2018)
PassMark	13,029+26%	10,314
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 Silver 4110 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus 2400 on the Xeon Silver 4110 — the Xeon Silver 4110 supports 199.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon Silver 4110 supports up to 1024 of RAM compared to 128 GB — 155.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 6 (Xeon Silver 4110). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 48 (Xeon Silver 4110) — the Xeon Silver 4110 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 (Xeon Silver 4110).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon Silver 4110
Socket	LGA1200	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	2400+59900%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+13107100%	1024
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	48+200%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon Silver 4110 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.