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 $1,270 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,430 MSRP).
✅Delivers 196.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 27.5 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,430 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 250W, a 185W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-3335.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3335 across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 39,293).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 24 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3335, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Xeon W-3335

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +57.4% higher average FPS across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (24 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 27.5 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,430 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌284.6% higher power demand at 250W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Xeon W-3335

2021

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,270 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $1,430 MSRP).
✅Delivers 196.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 27.5 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $1,430 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 250W, a 185W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-3335.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +57.4% higher average FPS across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (24 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-3335 across 7 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 39,293).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 24 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3335, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 27.5 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($1,430 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌284.6% higher power demand at 250W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W-3335 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-3335 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-3335 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 57.4% more average FPS across 7 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon W-3335 is the better fit. You are getting 201.6% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Xeon W-3335 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon W-3335 is 793.8% more expensive on MSRP at $1,430 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 57.4% average FPS lead across 7 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 196.4% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 27.5 PassMark/$), 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-3335 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2021 vs 2020), 100% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 12 MB), more multi-core headroom with 16 cores / 32 threads instead of 6/12, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. 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-3335 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3335
1080p
low	192 FPS	182 FPS
medium	152 FPS	144 FPS
high	123 FPS	118 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	92 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	148 FPS
medium	119 FPS	115 FPS
high	97 FPS	93 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	72 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	68 FPS
medium	70 FPS	57 FPS
high	55 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	36 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-3335

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3335
1080p
low	326 FPS	447 FPS
medium	318 FPS	385 FPS
high	290 FPS	316 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	266 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	385 FPS
medium	292 FPS	342 FPS
high	267 FPS	287 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	237 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	248 FPS
medium	258 FPS	223 FPS
high	235 FPS	199 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	165 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-3335

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3335
1080p
low	326 FPS	982 FPS
medium	326 FPS	962 FPS
high	326 FPS	905 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	819 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	836 FPS
medium	326 FPS	736 FPS
high	326 FPS	692 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	618 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	537 FPS
medium	326 FPS	438 FPS
high	289 FPS	386 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	315 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-3335

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3335
1080p
low	326 FPS	982 FPS
medium	326 FPS	868 FPS
high	326 FPS	751 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	639 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	790 FPS
medium	326 FPS	676 FPS
high	326 FPS	582 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	496 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	550 FPS
medium	326 FPS	480 FPS
high	326 FPS	429 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	363 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-3335

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon W-3335

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-3335

The Xeon W-3335 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Ice Lake-W (2021) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 24 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4189. Thermal design power (TDP): 250 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 39,293 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon W-3335 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Xeon W-3335 has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4 GHz on the Xeon W-3335 — a 7.2% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.4 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon W-3335 uses Ice Lake-W (2021) (10 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon W-3335's 39,293 — a 100.4% lead for the Xeon W-3335. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 24 MB (total) on the Xeon W-3335.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3335
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	16 / 32+167%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+7%	4 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3.4 GHz+17%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	24 MB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	1 MB (per core)+300%
Process	14 nm	10 nm-29%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Ice Lake-W (2021)
PassMark	13,029	39,293+202%
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-3335 uses LGA4189 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus 3200 on the Xeon W-3335 — the Xeon W-3335 supports 199.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon W-3335 supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 128 GB — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 8 (Xeon W-3335). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 64 (Xeon W-3335) — the Xeon W-3335 offers 48 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and W790 (Xeon W-3335).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3335
Socket	LGA1200	LGA4189
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	3200+79900%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+3276700%	4096
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	64+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon W-3335 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-3335 rivals EPYC 7402.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3335
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-3335 debuted at $1430. On MSRP ($160 vs $1430), the Core i5-10400F is $1270 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 27.5 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3335 — making the Core i5-10400F the 99.1% better value option.