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 $334 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $494 MSRP).
✅Delivers 68.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 48.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $494 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-1390.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-1390 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 23,902).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-1390, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.

Xeon W-1390

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +42.1% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 48.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($494 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-1390

2021

Why buy it

✅Costs $334 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $494 MSRP).
✅Delivers 68.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 48.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $494 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-1390.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +42.1% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-1390 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 23,902).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-1390, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 48.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($494 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-1390 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-1390 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-1390 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 42.1% 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-1390 is the better fit. You are getting 83.5% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Xeon W-1390 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon W-1390 is 208.8% more expensive on MSRP at $494 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 42.1% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 68.3% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 48.4 PassMark/$), 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-1390 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2021 vs 2020), 33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 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-1390 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-1390
1080p
low	192 FPS	246 FPS
medium	152 FPS	231 FPS
high	123 FPS	192 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	165 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	217 FPS
medium	119 FPS	184 FPS
high	97 FPS	148 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	130 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	151 FPS
medium	70 FPS	128 FPS
high	55 FPS	98 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	86 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-1390

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-1390
1080p
low	326 FPS	406 FPS
medium	318 FPS	343 FPS
high	290 FPS	306 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	274 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	363 FPS
medium	292 FPS	315 FPS
high	267 FPS	278 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	239 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	241 FPS
medium	258 FPS	216 FPS
high	235 FPS	208 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	176 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-1390

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-1390
1080p
low	326 FPS	598 FPS
medium	326 FPS	527 FPS
high	326 FPS	453 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	391 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	590 FPS
medium	326 FPS	490 FPS
high	326 FPS	415 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	361 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	421 FPS
medium	326 FPS	365 FPS
high	289 FPS	325 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	276 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-1390

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-1390
1080p
low	326 FPS	598 FPS
medium	326 FPS	598 FPS
high	326 FPS	598 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	598 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	598 FPS
medium	326 FPS	598 FPS
high	326 FPS	598 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	552 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	558 FPS
medium	326 FPS	506 FPS
high	326 FPS	452 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	393 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-1390

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon W-1390

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-1390

The Xeon W-1390 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 6 May 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Rocket Lake-S (2021) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 5.1 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1200. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 23,902 points. Launch price was $494.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon W-1390 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Xeon W-1390 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 5.1 GHz on the Xeon W-1390 — a 17% clock advantage for the Xeon W-1390 (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon W-1390 uses Rocket Lake-S (2021) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon W-1390's 23,902 — a 58.9% lead for the Xeon W-1390. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 16 MB (total) on the Xeon W-1390.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-1390
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 16+33%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	5.1 GHz+19%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+4%	2.8 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	16 MB (total)+33%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512 kB (per core)+100%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Rocket Lake-S (2021)
PassMark	13,029	23,902+83%
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-1390
Socket	LGA1200	LGA1200
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
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-1390). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-1390
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-1390 debuted at $494. On MSRP ($160 vs $494), the Core i5-10400F is $334 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 48.4 pts/$ for the Xeon W-1390 — making the Core i5-10400F the 50.9% better value option.