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 $1,159 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,319 MSRP).
✅Delivers 488.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 13.8 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,319 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 160W, a 95W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-3225.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3225 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 11,500).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 17 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3225, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Xeon W-3225

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +25.5% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+37.5% larger total L3 cache (17 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅300% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.8 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,319 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌146.2% higher power demand at 160W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Xeon W-3225

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,159 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,319 MSRP).
✅Delivers 488.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 13.8 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,319 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 160W, a 95W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-3225.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +25.5% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+37.5% larger total L3 cache (17 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅300% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3225 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 11,500).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 17 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3225, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.8 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,319 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌146.2% higher power demand at 160W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W-3225 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-3225 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-3225 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 25.5% 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-3225 is the better fit. You are getting 40.4% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 37.5% larger total L3 cache (17 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Xeon W-3225 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon W-3225 is 724.4% more expensive on MSRP at $1,319 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 25.5% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 488.5% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 13.8 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core i5-10400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2019). That makes it the safer long-term pick.

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-3225 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3225
1080p
low	192 FPS	211 FPS
medium	152 FPS	166 FPS
high	123 FPS	135 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	102 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	173 FPS
medium	119 FPS	134 FPS
high	97 FPS	109 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	82 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	85 FPS
medium	70 FPS	71 FPS
high	55 FPS	56 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	44 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-3225

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3225
1080p
low	326 FPS	380 FPS
medium	318 FPS	314 FPS
high	290 FPS	279 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	247 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	342 FPS
medium	292 FPS	292 FPS
high	267 FPS	258 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	222 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	248 FPS
medium	258 FPS	216 FPS
high	235 FPS	201 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	173 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-3225

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3225
1080p
low	326 FPS	456 FPS
medium	326 FPS	456 FPS
high	326 FPS	456 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	456 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	456 FPS
medium	326 FPS	456 FPS
high	326 FPS	456 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	456 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	456 FPS
medium	326 FPS	429 FPS
high	289 FPS	375 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	302 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-3225

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3225
1080p
low	326 FPS	456 FPS
medium	326 FPS	456 FPS
high	326 FPS	456 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	456 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	456 FPS
medium	326 FPS	456 FPS
high	326 FPS	456 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	456 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	456 FPS
medium	326 FPS	456 FPS
high	326 FPS	456 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-3225

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon W-3225

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-3225

The Xeon W-3225 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 June 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Cascade Lake (2019−2020) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 16.5 MB. L2 cache: 8 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 160 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2666. Passmark benchmark score: 18,251 points. Launch price was $1,199.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon W-3225 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Xeon W-3225 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.4 GHz on the Xeon W-3225 — a 2.3% clock advantage for the Xeon W-3225 (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.7 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon W-3225 uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon W-3225's 18,251 — a 33.4% lead for the Xeon W-3225. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 11,500 (33.6% advantage for the Xeon W-3225). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,150, a 23.3% lead for the Core i5-10400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 9,100 (44.6% advantage for the Xeon W-3225). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 16.5 MB on the Xeon W-3225.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3225
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 16+33%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	4.4 GHz+2%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.7 GHz+28%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	16.5 MB+38%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	8 MB+3100%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	13,029	18,251+40%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	11,500+40%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454+26%	1,150
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	9,100+57%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon W-3225 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. The Xeon W-3225 supports up to 1024 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 155.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 6 (Xeon W-3225). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 64 (Xeon W-3225) — the Xeon W-3225 offers 48 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and C621 (Xeon W-3225).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3225
Socket	LGA1200	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2933
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	1024 GB+700%
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	64+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon W-3225 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon W-3225). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Xeon W-3225 targets Workstation. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Xeon W-3225 rivals Ryzen Threadripper 2920X.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3225
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d, EPT
Target Use	Gaming	Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Xeon W-3225 debuted at $1319. On MSRP ($160 vs $1319), the Core i5-10400F is $1159 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 13.8 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3225 — making the Core i5-10400F the 141.9% better value option.