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 $4,289 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Delivers 796.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 9.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 205W, a 140W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-3275M.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3275M across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 40,419).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 39 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3275M, which brings 28 cores / 56 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Xeon W-3275M

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +103.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+220.8% larger total L3 cache (39 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 28 cores / 56 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 9.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($4,449 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-3275M

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $4,289 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Delivers 796.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 9.1 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 205W, a 140W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-3275M.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +103.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+220.8% larger total L3 cache (39 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 28 cores / 56 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-3275M across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 40,419).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 39 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3275M, which brings 28 cores / 56 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.1 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($4,449 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-3275M better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-3275M 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-3275M is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 103.3% 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-3275M is the better fit. You are getting 210.2% better PassMark, backed by 28 cores and 56 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 220.8% larger total L3 cache (39 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Xeon W-3275M is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon W-3275M is 2680.6% more expensive on MSRP at $4,449 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 103.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 796.3% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 9.1 PassMark/$), 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-3275M Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3275M
1080p
low	192 FPS	198 FPS
medium	152 FPS	162 FPS
high	123 FPS	132 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	106 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	159 FPS
medium	119 FPS	125 FPS
high	97 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	83 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	87 FPS
medium	70 FPS	74 FPS
high	55 FPS	58 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	47 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-3275M

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3275M
1080p
low	326 FPS	607 FPS
medium	318 FPS	522 FPS
high	290 FPS	420 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	371 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	514 FPS
medium	292 FPS	447 FPS
high	267 FPS	370 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	306 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	306 FPS
medium	258 FPS	266 FPS
high	235 FPS	243 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	213 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-3275M

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3275M
1080p
low	326 FPS	1010 FPS
medium	326 FPS	928 FPS
high	326 FPS	876 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	793 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	808 FPS
medium	326 FPS	715 FPS
high	326 FPS	675 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	605 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	519 FPS
medium	326 FPS	429 FPS
high	289 FPS	387 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	315 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-3275M

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3275M
1080p
low	326 FPS	1010 FPS
medium	326 FPS	1010 FPS
high	326 FPS	885 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	773 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	932 FPS
medium	326 FPS	804 FPS
high	326 FPS	702 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	603 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	680 FPS
medium	326 FPS	591 FPS
high	326 FPS	521 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-3275M

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon W-3275M

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-3275M

The Xeon W-3275M 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 28 cores and 56 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.6 GHz. L3 cache: 38.5 MB. L2 cache: 28 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 205 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 40,419 points. Launch price was $7,453.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon W-3275M offers 28 cores / 56 threads — the Xeon W-3275M has 22 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3275M — a 6.7% clock advantage for the Xeon W-3275M (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon W-3275M uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon W-3275M's 40,419 — a 102.5% lead for the Xeon W-3275M. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 38.5 MB on the Xeon W-3275M.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3275M
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	28 / 56+367%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	4.6 GHz+7%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+16%	2.5 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	38.5 MB+221%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	28 MB+11100%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	13,029	40,419+210%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon W-3275M uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus 2933 on the Xeon W-3275M — the Xeon W-3275M supports 199.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon W-3275M supports up to 2048 of RAM compared to 128 GB — 176.5% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 6 (Xeon W-3275M). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 64 (Xeon W-3275M) — the Xeon W-3275M offers 48 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and C620 (Xeon W-3275M).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3275M
Socket	LGA1200	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	2933+73225%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+6553500%	2048
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	64+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon W-3275M supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Xeon W-3275M rivals EPYC 7742.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3275M
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Xeon W-3275M debuted at $4449. On MSRP ($160 vs $4449), the Core i5-10400F is $4289 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 9.1 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3275M — making the Core i5-10400F the 159.9% better value option.