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 i5-11600KF

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +26.9% higher average FPS across 28 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,853 less on MSRP ($237 MSRP vs $2,090 MSRP).
✅Delivers 791.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 82.1 vs 9.2 PassMark/$ ($237 MSRP vs $2,090 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 135W, a 10W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 35 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2690 v4, which brings 14 cores / 28 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-2690 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅+191.7% larger total L3 cache (35 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 14 cores / 28 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-11600KF across 28 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (19,255 vs 19,468).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.2 vs 82.1 PassMark/$ ($2,090 MSRP vs $237 MSRP).

Core i5-11600KF

2021

Xeon E5-2690 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +26.9% higher average FPS across 28 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,853 less on MSRP ($237 MSRP vs $2,090 MSRP).
✅Delivers 791.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 82.1 vs 9.2 PassMark/$ ($237 MSRP vs $2,090 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 135W, a 10W reduction.

Why buy it

✅+191.7% larger total L3 cache (35 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 14 cores / 28 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 35 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2690 v4, which brings 14 cores / 28 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-11600KF across 28 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (19,255 vs 19,468).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.2 vs 82.1 PassMark/$ ($2,090 MSRP vs $237 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-11600KF better than Xeon E5-2690 v4?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon E5-2690 v4 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-11600KF 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, Core i5-11600KF is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 26.9% more average FPS across 28 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-11600KF is the better fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads.

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

Core i5-11600KF is the smarter buy today. Core i5-11600KF is $1,853 cheaper on MSRP at $237 MSRP versus $2,090 MSRP, and it gives you a 26.9% average FPS lead across 28 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 791.6% better value on MSRP (82.1 vs 9.2 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core i5-11600KF is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2021 vs 2016), more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 12 threads instead of 14/28, 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 i5-11600KF Benchmark Check

Xeon E5-2690 v4 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-11600KF	Xeon E5-2690 v4
1080p
low	301 FPS	177 FPS
medium	263 FPS	154 FPS
high	221 FPS	121 FPS
ultra	189 FPS	97 FPS
1440p
low	247 FPS	148 FPS
medium	195 FPS	125 FPS
high	159 FPS	95 FPS
ultra	140 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	170 FPS	69 FPS
medium	136 FPS	61 FPS
high	105 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	92 FPS	38 FPS

Open Core i5-11600KF Open Xeon E5-2690 v4

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-11600KF	Xeon E5-2690 v4
1080p
low	480 FPS	364 FPS
medium	380 FPS	330 FPS
high	338 FPS	279 FPS
ultra	295 FPS	224 FPS
1440p
low	413 FPS	313 FPS
medium	332 FPS	284 FPS
high	301 FPS	242 FPS
ultra	262 FPS	188 FPS
4K
low	343 FPS	195 FPS
medium	279 FPS	178 FPS
high	254 FPS	153 FPS
ultra	214 FPS	120 FPS

Open Core i5-11600KF Open Xeon E5-2690 v4

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-11600KF	Xeon E5-2690 v4
1080p
low	487 FPS	481 FPS
medium	487 FPS	481 FPS
high	487 FPS	481 FPS
ultra	487 FPS	481 FPS
1440p
low	487 FPS	481 FPS
medium	487 FPS	481 FPS
high	487 FPS	481 FPS
ultra	451 FPS	481 FPS
4K
low	487 FPS	447 FPS
medium	456 FPS	363 FPS
high	390 FPS	331 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	277 FPS

Open Core i5-11600KF Open Xeon E5-2690 v4

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-11600KF	Xeon E5-2690 v4
1080p
low	487 FPS	481 FPS
medium	487 FPS	481 FPS
high	487 FPS	481 FPS
ultra	487 FPS	481 FPS
1440p
low	487 FPS	481 FPS
medium	487 FPS	481 FPS
high	487 FPS	481 FPS
ultra	487 FPS	461 FPS
4K
low	487 FPS	481 FPS
medium	487 FPS	470 FPS
high	487 FPS	416 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	358 FPS

Open Core i5-11600KF Open Xeon E5-2690 v4

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-11600KF and Xeon E5-2690 v4

Core i5-11600KF

The Core i5-11600KF is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 16 March 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Rocket Lake (2021) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.9 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1200. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 19,468 points. Launch price was $299.

Xeon E5-2690 v4

The Xeon E5-2690 v4 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 June 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 14 cores and 28 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 35 MB. L2 cache: 3.5 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 135 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 19,255 points. Launch price was $2,090.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-11600KF packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon E5-2690 v4 offers 14 cores / 28 threads — the Xeon E5-2690 v4 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core i5-11600KF versus 3.5 GHz on the Xeon E5-2690 v4 — a 33.3% clock advantage for the Core i5-11600KF (base: 3.9 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The Core i5-11600KF uses the Rocket Lake (2021) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5-2690 v4 uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-11600KF scores 19,468 against the Xeon E5-2690 v4's 19,255 — a 1.1% lead for the Core i5-11600KF. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-11600KF vs 35 MB on the Xeon E5-2690 v4.

Feature	Core i5-11600KF	Xeon E5-2690 v4
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	14 / 28+133%
Boost Clock	4.9 GHz+40%	3.5 GHz
Base Clock	3.9 GHz+50%	2.6 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	35 MB+192%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	3.5 MB+1300%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Rocket Lake (2021)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	19,468+1%	19,255
Cinebench R23 Multi	11,277	—
Geekbench 6 Single	2,138	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	8,631	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-11600KF uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon E5-2690 v4 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-3200 memory speed. The Xeon E5-2690 v4 supports up to 1536 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 169.2% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-11600KF) vs 4 (Xeon E5-2690 v4). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-11600KF) vs 40 (Xeon E5-2690 v4) — the Xeon E5-2690 v4 offers 20 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: LGA1200 (Core i5-11600KF) and Intel X99,Intel C612 (Xeon E5-2690 v4).

Feature	Core i5-11600KF	Xeon E5-2690 v4
Socket	LGA1200	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-3200	DDR4-2400
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	1536 GB+1100%
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	40+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i5-11600KF) / not specified (Xeon E5-2690 v4). Primary use case: Core i5-11600KF targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-11600KF rivals Ryzen 5 5600X.

Feature	Core i5-11600KF	Xeon E5-2690 v4
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	Yes	—
AVX-512	Yes	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, EPT	—
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-11600KF launched at $237 MSRP, while the Xeon E5-2690 v4 debuted at $2090. On MSRP ($237 vs $2090), the Core i5-11600KF is $1853 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-11600KF delivers 82.1 pts/$ vs 9.2 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2690 v4 — making the Core i5-11600KF the 159.7% better value option.