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 $307 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $467 MSRP).
✅Delivers 138.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 34.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $467 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-11865MLE.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-11865MLE across 42 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 15,917).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 24 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-11865MLE, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.
❌160% higher power demand at 65W vs 25W.

Xeon W-11865MLE

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.4% higher average FPS across 42 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.
✅Draws 25W instead of 65W, a 40W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 34.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($467 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Xeon W-11865MLE

2021

Why buy it

✅Costs $307 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $467 MSRP).
✅Delivers 138.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 34.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $467 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-11865MLE.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.4% higher average FPS across 42 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.
✅Draws 25W instead of 65W, a 40W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-11865MLE across 42 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 15,917).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 24 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-11865MLE, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.
❌160% higher power demand at 65W vs 25W.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 34.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($467 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W-11865MLE better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-11865MLE 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 W-11865MLE is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 11.4% 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 W-11865MLE is the better fit. You are getting 22.2% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Xeon W-11865MLE is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon W-11865MLE is 191.9% more expensive on MSRP at $467 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 11.4% average FPS lead across 42 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 138.9% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 34.1 PassMark/$), 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 W-11865MLE is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2021 vs 2020), 100% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 12 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 16 threads instead of 6/12. 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 W-11865MLE Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-11865MLE
1080p
low	192 FPS	164 FPS
medium	152 FPS	144 FPS
high	123 FPS	116 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	140 FPS
medium	119 FPS	119 FPS
high	97 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	81 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	77 FPS
medium	70 FPS	70 FPS
high	55 FPS	56 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	43 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-11865MLE

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-11865MLE
1080p
low	326 FPS	296 FPS
medium	318 FPS	255 FPS
high	290 FPS	216 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	195 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	253 FPS
medium	292 FPS	226 FPS
high	267 FPS	197 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	170 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	157 FPS
medium	258 FPS	142 FPS
high	235 FPS	135 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	119 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-11865MLE

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-11865MLE
1080p
low	326 FPS	398 FPS
medium	326 FPS	398 FPS
high	326 FPS	398 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	397 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	398 FPS
medium	326 FPS	398 FPS
high	326 FPS	397 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	331 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	379 FPS
medium	326 FPS	315 FPS
high	289 FPS	282 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	224 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-11865MLE

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-11865MLE
1080p
low	326 FPS	398 FPS
medium	326 FPS	398 FPS
high	326 FPS	398 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	398 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	398 FPS
medium	326 FPS	398 FPS
high	326 FPS	398 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	398 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	398 FPS
medium	326 FPS	398 FPS
high	326 FPS	398 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	363 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-11865MLE

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon W-11865MLE

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 W-11865MLE

The Xeon W-11865MLE is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 26 August 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Tiger Lake-H (2021) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.5 GHz. L3 cache: 24 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1787. Thermal design power (TDP): 25 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 15,917 points. Launch price was $467.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon W-11865MLE offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Xeon W-11865MLE has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.5 GHz on the Xeon W-11865MLE — a 4.5% clock advantage for the Xeon W-11865MLE (base: 2.9 GHz vs 1.5 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon W-11865MLE uses Tiger Lake-H (2021) (10 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon W-11865MLE's 15,917 — a 20% lead for the Xeon W-11865MLE. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 24 MB (total) on the Xeon W-11865MLE.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-11865MLE
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 16+33%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	4.5 GHz+5%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+93%	1.5 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	24 MB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	1.25 MB (per core)+400%
Process	14 nm	10 nm-29%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Tiger Lake-H (2021)
PassMark	13,029	15,917+22%
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 W-11865MLE uses FCBGA1787 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-11865MLE
Socket	LGA1200	FCBGA1787
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
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 W-11865MLE). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-11865MLE
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 W-11865MLE debuted at $467. On MSRP ($160 vs $467), the Core i5-10400F is $307 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 34.1 pts/$ for the Xeon W-11865MLE — making the Core i5-10400F the 82% better value option.