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 $4,842 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $5,002 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1329.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 5.7 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $5,002 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 205W, a 140W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-3245M.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3245M across 30 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 18,500).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 22 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3245M, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Xeon W-3245M

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +43.1% higher average FPS across 30 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 5.7 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($5,002 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌215.4% higher power demand at 205W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Xeon W-3245M

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $4,842 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $5,002 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1329.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 5.7 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $5,002 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 205W, a 140W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-3245M.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +43.1% higher average FPS across 30 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

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3245M across 30 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,191 vs 18,500).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 22 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3245M, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.7 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($5,002 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-3245M better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-3245M 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-3245M is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 43.1% more average FPS across 30 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon W-3245M is the better fit. You are getting 125.9% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also carries 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-3245M is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon W-3245M is 3026.3% more expensive on MSRP at $5,002 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 43.1% average FPS lead across 30 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 1329.5% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 5.7 PassMark/$), 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-3245M Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3245M
1080p
low	192 FPS	185 FPS
medium	152 FPS	150 FPS
high	123 FPS	123 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	148 FPS
medium	119 FPS	117 FPS
high	97 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	82 FPS
medium	70 FPS	70 FPS
high	55 FPS	56 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	44 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-3245M

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3245M
1080p
low	326 FPS	531 FPS
medium	318 FPS	447 FPS
high	290 FPS	372 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	335 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	461 FPS
medium	292 FPS	399 FPS
high	267 FPS	336 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	290 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	287 FPS
medium	258 FPS	248 FPS
high	235 FPS	228 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	199 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-3245M

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3245M
1080p
low	326 FPS	712 FPS
medium	326 FPS	712 FPS
high	326 FPS	712 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	712 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	712 FPS
medium	326 FPS	712 FPS
high	326 FPS	677 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	603 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	524 FPS
medium	326 FPS	428 FPS
high	289 FPS	387 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	314 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-3245M

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3245M
1080p
low	326 FPS	712 FPS
medium	326 FPS	712 FPS
high	326 FPS	712 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	712 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	712 FPS
medium	326 FPS	712 FPS
high	326 FPS	696 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	601 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	646 FPS
medium	326 FPS	566 FPS
high	326 FPS	504 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-3245M

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon W-3245M

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-3245M

The Xeon W-3245M 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: 28,494 points. Launch price was $5,002.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon W-3245M offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Xeon W-3245M has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3245M — a 6.7% clock advantage for the Xeon W-3245M (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-3245M uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon W-3245M's 28,494 — a 74.5% lead for the Xeon W-3245M. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 8,191 vs 18,500 (77.2% advantage for the Xeon W-3245M). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,474, a 1.4% lead for the Xeon W-3245M that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 11,572 (66.7% advantage for the Xeon W-3245M). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 22 MB on the Xeon W-3245M.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3245M
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)	16 MB+6300%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	13,029	28,494+119%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	18,500+126%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	1,474+1%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	11,572+100%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon W-3245M uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. The Xeon W-3245M supports up to 2048 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 176.5% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 6 (Xeon W-3245M). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 64 (Xeon W-3245M) — the Xeon W-3245M 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-3245M).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3245M
Socket	LGA1200	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2933
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	2048 GB+1500%
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	64+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon W-3245M 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-3245M). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming, Xeon W-3245M targets Professional Workstation / Mac Pro. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Xeon W-3245M rivals Xeon Gold 6242.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3245M
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 / Mac Pro

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Xeon W-3245M debuted at $5002. On MSRP ($160 vs $5002), the Core i5-10400F is $4842 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 5.7 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3245M — making the Core i5-10400F the 173.8% better value option.