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 $3,579 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $3,739 MSRP).
✅Delivers 367.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 17.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $3,739 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 300W, a 235W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon w9-3475X.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon w9-3475X across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 44,869).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 83 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon w9-3475X, which brings 36 cores / 72 threads and 112 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Xeon w9-3475X moves to LGA4677 and DDR5.

Xeon w9-3475X

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +118.5% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+587.5% larger total L3 cache (83 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 36 cores / 72 threads, plus 112 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅Newer platform on LGA4677 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
✅600% more PCIe lanes (112 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 17.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($3,739 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌361.5% higher power demand at 300W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Core i5-10400F

2020

Xeon w9-3475X

2023

Why buy it

✅Costs $3,579 less on MSRP ($160 MSRP vs $3,739 MSRP).
✅Delivers 367.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.4 vs 17.4 PassMark/$ ($160 MSRP vs $3,739 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 300W, a 235W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon w9-3475X.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +118.5% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+587.5% larger total L3 cache (83 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 36 cores / 72 threads, plus 112 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅Newer platform on LGA4677 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1200 and DDR4.
✅600% more PCIe lanes (112 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon w9-3475X across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (5,783 vs 44,869).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 83 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon w9-3475X, which brings 36 cores / 72 threads and 112 PCIe lanes.
❌Older platform position on LGA1200 with DDR4, while Xeon w9-3475X moves to LGA4677 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 17.4 vs 81.4 PassMark/$ ($3,739 MSRP vs $160 MSRP).
❌361.5% higher power demand at 300W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-10400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon w9-3475X better than Core i5-10400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon w9-3475X 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 w9-3475X is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 118.5% more average FPS across 3 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon w9-3475X is the better fit. You are getting 675.9% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 36 cores and 72 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 587.5% larger total L3 cache (83 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Xeon w9-3475X is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-10400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon w9-3475X is 2236.9% more expensive on MSRP at $3,739 MSRP versus $160 MSRP, and it gives you a 118.5% average FPS lead across 3 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-10400F is also 367.9% better value on MSRP (81.4 vs 17.4 PassMark/$), 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 w9-3475X is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2020), a healthier platform with LGA4677 and DDR5 instead of LGA1200, 587.5% larger total L3 cache (83 MB vs 12 MB), more multi-core headroom with 36 cores / 72 threads instead of 6/12, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

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 w9-3475X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon w9-3475X
1080p
low	192 FPS	316 FPS
medium	152 FPS	306 FPS
high	123 FPS	246 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	207 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	274 FPS
medium	119 FPS	237 FPS
high	97 FPS	178 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	157 FPS
4K
low	82 FPS	186 FPS
medium	70 FPS	159 FPS
high	55 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	43 FPS	108 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon w9-3475X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon w9-3475X
1080p
low	326 FPS	384 FPS
medium	318 FPS	332 FPS
high	290 FPS	270 FPS
ultra	253 FPS	236 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	308 FPS
medium	292 FPS	273 FPS
high	267 FPS	232 FPS
ultra	234 FPS	190 FPS
4K
low	309 FPS	181 FPS
medium	258 FPS	162 FPS
high	235 FPS	151 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	133 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon w9-3475X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon w9-3475X
1080p
low	326 FPS	1025 FPS
medium	326 FPS	1086 FPS
high	326 FPS	1020 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	875 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	1009 FPS
medium	326 FPS	913 FPS
high	326 FPS	839 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	656 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	605 FPS
medium	326 FPS	521 FPS
high	289 FPS	465 FPS
ultra	229 FPS	400 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon w9-3475X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-10400F	Xeon w9-3475X
1080p
low	326 FPS	1304 FPS
medium	326 FPS	1015 FPS
high	326 FPS	1002 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	866 FPS
1440p
low	326 FPS	1061 FPS
medium	326 FPS	918 FPS
high	326 FPS	800 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	656 FPS
4K
low	326 FPS	784 FPS
medium	326 FPS	685 FPS
high	326 FPS	583 FPS
ultra	326 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-10400F Open Xeon w9-3475X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-10400F and Xeon w9-3475X

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 w9-3475X

The Xeon w9-3475X is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 February 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) architecture. It features 36 cores and 72 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 82.5 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4677. Thermal design power (TDP): 300 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 65,077 points. Launch price was $3,739.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-10400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon w9-3475X offers 36 cores / 72 threads — the Xeon w9-3475X has 30 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Core i5-10400F versus 4.8 GHz on the Xeon w9-3475X — a 11% clock advantage for the Xeon w9-3475X (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The Core i5-10400F uses the Comet Lake (2020−2025) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon w9-3475X uses Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-10400F scores 13,029 against the Xeon w9-3475X's 65,077 — a 133.3% lead for the Xeon w9-3475X. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,454 vs 1,814, a 22% lead for the Xeon w9-3475X that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 5,783 vs 44,869 (154.3% advantage for the Xeon w9-3475X). L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-10400F vs 82.5 MB on the Xeon w9-3475X.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon w9-3475X
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	36 / 72+500%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz	4.8 GHz+12%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+32%	2.2 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	82.5 MB+588%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	2 MB (per core)+700%
Process	14 nm	Intel 7 nm-50%
Architecture	Comet Lake (2020−2025)	Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
PassMark	13,029	65,077+399%
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,191	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,454	1,814+25%
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,783	44,869+676%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-10400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon w9-3475X uses LGA4677 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-10400F versus DDR5-4800 on the Xeon w9-3475X — the Xeon w9-3475X supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon w9-3475X supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-10400F) vs 8 (Xeon w9-3475X). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-10400F) vs 112 (Xeon w9-3475X) — the Xeon w9-3475X offers 96 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H410,B460,H470,Z490,H510,B560,H570,Z590 (Core i5-10400F) and W790 (Xeon w9-3475X).

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon w9-3475X
Socket	LGA1200	LGA4677
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR5-4800+25%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	4096 GB+3100%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	112+600%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Xeon w9-3475X has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the Xeon w9-3475X supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-10400F) vs true (Xeon w9-3475X). Primary use case: Core i5-10400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-10400F rivals Ryzen 5 3600; Xeon w9-3475X rivals Threadripper PRO 7965WX.

Feature	Core i5-10400F	Xeon w9-3475X
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	true
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-10400F launched at $160 MSRP, while the Xeon w9-3475X debuted at $3739. On MSRP ($160 vs $3739), the Core i5-10400F is $3579 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-10400F delivers 81.4 pts/$ vs 17.4 pts/$ for the Xeon w9-3475X — making the Core i5-10400F the 129.6% better value option.