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 $338 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $498 MSRP).
✅Delivers 101.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 40.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $498 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 80W, a 15W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-1290.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-1290 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 20,112).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 20 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-1290, which brings 10 cores / 20 threads.

Xeon W-1290

2020

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +49.9% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 10 cores / 20 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 40.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($498 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌23.1% higher power demand at 80W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Xeon W-1290

2020

Why buy it

✅Costs $338 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $498 MSRP).
✅Delivers 101.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 40.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $498 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 80W, a 15W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-1290.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +49.9% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 10 cores / 20 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-1290 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 20,112).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 20 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-1290, which brings 10 cores / 20 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 40.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($498 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌23.1% higher power demand at 80W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W-1290 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-1290 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-1290 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 49.9% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon W-1290 is the better fit. You are getting 54.4% better PassMark, backed by 10 cores and 20 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Xeon W-1290 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon W-1290 is 211.2% more expensive on MSRP at $498 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 49.9% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 101.6% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 40.4 PassMark/$), 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-1290 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB) and more multi-core headroom with 10 cores / 20 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-1290 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-1290
1080p
low	192 FPS	256 FPS
medium	152 FPS	239 FPS
high	123 FPS	201 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	173 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	223 FPS
medium	119 FPS	188 FPS
high	97 FPS	154 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	136 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	156 FPS
medium	70 FPS	132 FPS
high	55 FPS	102 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	91 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-1290

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-1290
1080p
low	326 FPS	503 FPS
medium	318 FPS	503 FPS
high	290 FPS	451 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	411 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	503 FPS
medium	292 FPS	475 FPS
high	267 FPS	405 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	353 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	318 FPS
medium	258 FPS	282 FPS
high	235 FPS	270 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	235 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-1290

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-1290
1080p
low	326 FPS	503 FPS
medium	326 FPS	503 FPS
high	326 FPS	503 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	419 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	503 FPS
medium	326 FPS	503 FPS
high	326 FPS	462 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	382 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	469 FPS
medium	326 FPS	403 FPS
high	289 FPS	360 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	296 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-1290

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-1290
1080p
low	326 FPS	503 FPS
medium	326 FPS	503 FPS
high	326 FPS	503 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	503 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	503 FPS
medium	326 FPS	503 FPS
high	326 FPS	503 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	503 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	503 FPS
medium	326 FPS	487 FPS
high	326 FPS	435 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	380 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-1290

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon W-1290

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-1290

The Xeon W-1290 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture. It features 10 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 5.1 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1200. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 20,112 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon W-1290 offers 10 cores / 20 threads — the Xeon W-1290 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5.1 GHz on the Xeon W-1290 — a 17% clock advantage for the Xeon W-1290 (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). Both are built on the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture using a 14 nm process. In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon W-1290's 20,112 — a 42.7% lead for the Xeon W-1290. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 20 MB (total) on the Xeon W-1290.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-1290
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	10 / 20+67%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	5.1 GHz+19%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.2 GHz+10%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	20 MB (total)+67%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256K (per core)
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Comet Lake (2020−2025)
PassMark	13,029	20,112+54%
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-1290
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-1290). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-1290
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-1290 debuted at $498. On MSRP ($160 vs $498), the Core i5-10400F is $338 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 40.4 pts/$ for the Xeon W-1290 — making the Core i5-10400F the 67.4% better value option.