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 $2,339 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $2,499 MSRP).
✅Delivers 322.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 19.3 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $2,499 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 250W, a 185W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-3345.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3345 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 48,140).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 36 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3345, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Xeon W-3345

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +83.5% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+200% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 19.3 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($2,499 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-3345

2021

Why buy it

✅Costs $2,339 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $2,499 MSRP).
✅Delivers 322.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 19.3 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $2,499 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 250W, a 185W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-3345.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +83.5% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+200% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅700% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3345 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (13,029 vs 48,140).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 36 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3345, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 19.3 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($2,499 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-3345 better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-3345 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-3345 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 83.5% 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-3345 is the better fit. You are getting 269.5% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 48 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 200% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Xeon W-3345 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon W-3345 is 1461.9% more expensive on MSRP at $2,499 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 83.5% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 322.7% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 19.3 PassMark/$), 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-3345 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2021 vs 2020), 200% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 12 MB), more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 48 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-3345 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3345
1080p
low	192 FPS	194 FPS
medium	152 FPS	155 FPS
high	123 FPS	127 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	159 FPS
medium	119 FPS	124 FPS
high	97 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	73 FPS
medium	70 FPS	60 FPS
high	55 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	39 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-3345

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3345
1080p
low	326 FPS	497 FPS
medium	318 FPS	431 FPS
high	290 FPS	345 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	285 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	425 FPS
medium	292 FPS	376 FPS
high	267 FPS	309 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	245 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	264 FPS
medium	258 FPS	237 FPS
high	235 FPS	209 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	174 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-3345

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3345
1080p
low	326 FPS	1025 FPS
medium	326 FPS	973 FPS
high	326 FPS	914 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	826 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	841 FPS
medium	326 FPS	744 FPS
high	326 FPS	699 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	626 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	540 FPS
medium	326 FPS	444 FPS
high	289 FPS	390 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	320 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-3345

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3345
1080p
low	326 FPS	938 FPS
medium	326 FPS	847 FPS
high	326 FPS	732 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	635 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	735 FPS
medium	326 FPS	645 FPS
high	326 FPS	554 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	481 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	534 FPS
medium	326 FPS	477 FPS
high	326 FPS	419 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	362 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon W-3345

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon W-3345

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-3345

The Xeon W-3345 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Ice Lake-W (2021) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 36 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: 48,140 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon W-3345 offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the Xeon W-3345 has 18 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4 GHz on the Xeon W-3345 — a 7.2% clock advantage for the Core i5-10400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon W-3345 uses Ice Lake-W (2021) (10 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon W-3345's 48,140 — a 114.8% lead for the Xeon W-3345. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 36 MB (total) on the Xeon W-3345.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3345
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	24 / 48+300%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+7%	4 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz	3 GHz+3%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	36 MB (total)+200%
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	48,140+269%
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-3345 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-3345 — the Xeon W-3345 supports 199.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon W-3345 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-3345). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 128 (Xeon W-3345) — the Xeon W-3345 offers 112 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and SP3,C621A (Xeon W-3345).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3345
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	128+700%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon W-3345 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-3345 rivals Xeon Platinum 8362.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon W-3345
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-3345 debuted at $2499. On MSRP ($160 vs $2499), the Core i5-10400F is $2339 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 19.3 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3345 — making the Core i5-10400F the 123.5% better value option.