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.

Core i5-10400F vs Xeon W-3245 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core i5-10400F vs Xeon W-3245: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Why buy it

✅Costs $2,039 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $2,199 MSRP).
✅Delivers 476.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 14.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $2,199 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 205W, a 140W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-3245.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3245 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 18,000).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 22 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3245, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Xeon W-3245

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +38.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+83.3% larger total L3 cache (22 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 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 14.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($2,199 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌215.4% higher power demand at 205W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W-3245 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon W-3245 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-10400F is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon W-3245 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 38.5% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon W-3245 is the stronger fit. You are getting 119.8% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 83.3% larger total L3 cache (22 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Xeon W-3245 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Xeon W-3245 comes in 1274.4% more expensive on MSRP at $2,199 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it still gives you a 38.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 476.0% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 14.1 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

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

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

Core i5-10400F vs Xeon W-3245 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

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-3245

The Xeon W-3245 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 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 4.6 GHz. L3 cache: 22 MB. L2 cache: 16 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 205 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 31,089 points. Launch price was $1,999.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon W-3245 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Xeon W-3245 has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3245 — a 6.7% clock advantage for the Xeon W-3245 (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon W-3245 uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon W-3245's 31,089 — a 81.9% lead for the Xeon W-3245. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 18,000 (74.9% advantage for the Xeon W-3245). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,353, a 7.2% lead for the Core i5-10400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 11,698 (67.7% advantage for the Xeon W-3245). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 22 MB on the Xeon W-3245.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3245
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	16 / 32+167%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	4.6 GHz+7%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.2 GHz+10%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	22 MB+83%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+1500%	16 MB
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	13,029	31,089+139%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	18,000+120%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454+7%	1,353
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	11,698+102%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon W-3245 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR4-2933 on the Xeon W-3245 — the Xeon W-3245 supports 10% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon W-3245 supports up to 1024 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 6 (Xeon W-3245). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 64 (Xeon W-3245) — the Xeon W-3245 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-3245).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3245
Socket	LGA1200	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2933+10%
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-3245 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-3245). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Xeon W-3245 targets Professional Workstation. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Xeon W-3245 rivals Threadripper 2950X.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3245
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d, EPT
Target Use	Gaming	Professional Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i5-10400F was priced at $160, while the Xeon W-3245 came in at $2199. On launch pricing ($160 vs $2199), Core i5-10400F was $2039 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 14.1 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3245 — making the Core i5-10400F the 140.8% better value option.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3245
MSRP	$160-93%	$2199
Performance per Dollar	81.4+477%	14.1
Release Date	2020	2019

Search Core i5-10400F on Amazon

Search Xeon W-3245 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.