
Core i5-10400F
Popular choices:

Xeon W-1250P
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 $151 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $311 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 77.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 45.8 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $311 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-1250P.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 14,259).
Xeon W-1250P
2020Why buy it
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 45.8 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($311 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Core i5-10400F
2020Xeon W-1250P
2020Why buy it
- ✅Costs $151 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $311 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 77.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 45.8 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $311 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-1250P.
Why buy it
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 14,259).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 45.8 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($311 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
- ❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Xeon W-1250P 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 W-1250P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 290 FPS |
| medium | 152 FPS | 253 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 213 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 182 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 243 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 191 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 157 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 138 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 82 FPS | 168 FPS |
| medium | 70 FPS | 134 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 104 FPS |
| ultra | 43 FPS | 90 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Xeon W-1250P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| medium | 318 FPS | 288 FPS |
| high | 290 FPS | 258 FPS |
| ultra | 253 FPS | 223 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 310 FPS |
| medium | 292 FPS | 251 FPS |
| high | 267 FPS | 229 FPS |
| ultra | 234 FPS | 198 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 309 FPS | 257 FPS |
| medium | 258 FPS | 211 FPS |
| high | 235 FPS | 193 FPS |
| ultra | 199 FPS | 161 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Xeon W-1250P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| high | 289 FPS | 356 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 318 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-10400F | Xeon W-1250P |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| medium | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| high | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
| ultra | 326 FPS | 356 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon W-1250P

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 W-1250P
Xeon W-1250P
The Xeon W-1250P is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 4.1 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB Intel® Smart Cache. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1200. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2666. Passmark benchmark score: 14,259 points. Launch price was $800.
Processing Power
Both the Core i5-10400F and Xeon W-1250P share an identical 6-core/12-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.8 GHz on the Xeon W-1250P — a 11% clock advantage for the Xeon W-1250P (base: 2.9 GHz vs 4.1 GHz). The Core i5-10400F is built on the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture. In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon W-1250P's 14,259 — a 9% lead for the Xeon W-1250P. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 12 MB Intel® Smart Cache on the Xeon W-1250P.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Xeon W-1250P |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 6 / 12 |
| Boost Clock | 4.3 GHz | 4.8 GHz+12% |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz | 4.1 GHz+41% |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 12 MB Intel® Smart Cache |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | — |
| Process | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Comet Lake (2020−2025) | — |
| PassMark | 13,029 | 14,259+9% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 8,191 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,454 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 5,783 | — |
Memory & Platform
Both processors use the LGA1200 socket with PCIe 3.0.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Xeon W-1250P |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1200 | LGA1200 |
| 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 W-1250P). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Xeon W-1250P |
|---|---|---|
| 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-1250P debuted at $311. On MSRP ($160 vs $311), the Core i5-10400F is $151 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 45.8 pts/$ for the Xeon W-1250P — making the Core i5-10400F the 55.9% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-10400F | Xeon W-1250P |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $160-49% | $311 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.4+78% | 45.8 |
| Release Date | 2020 | 2020 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












