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 i5-12400F

2022

Why buy it

✅Costs $4,275 less on MSRP ($174 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1110.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 112.3 vs 9.3 PassMark/$ ($174 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 205W, a 140W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-3275.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3275 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (19,532 vs 41,267).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (18 MB vs 39 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3275, which brings 28 cores / 56 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Xeon W-3275

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +44.8% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+113.9% larger total L3 cache (39 MB vs 18 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 28 cores / 56 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅220% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.3 vs 112.3 PassMark/$ ($4,449 MSRP vs $174 MSRP).
❌215.4% higher power demand at 205W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Core i5-12400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-12400F.

Core i5-12400F

2022

Xeon W-3275

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $4,275 less on MSRP ($174 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1110.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 112.3 vs 9.3 PassMark/$ ($174 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 205W, a 140W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-3275.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +44.8% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+113.9% larger total L3 cache (39 MB vs 18 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 28 cores / 56 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅220% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3275 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (19,532 vs 41,267).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (18 MB vs 39 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3275, which brings 28 cores / 56 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.3 vs 112.3 PassMark/$ ($4,449 MSRP vs $174 MSRP).
❌215.4% higher power demand at 205W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Core i5-12400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-12400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W-3275 better than Core i5-12400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-3275 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-12400F 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-3275 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 44.8% more average FPS across 2 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon W-3275 is the better fit. You are getting 111.3% better PassMark, backed by 28 cores and 56 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 113.9% larger total L3 cache (39 MB vs 18 MB).

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

Xeon W-3275 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-12400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon W-3275 is 2456.9% more expensive on MSRP at $4,449 MSRP versus $174 MSRP, and it gives you a 44.8% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-12400F is also 1110.2% better value on MSRP (112.3 vs 9.3 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Core i5-12400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2022 vs 2019) and a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of LGA3647. 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 i5-12400F Benchmark Check

Xeon W-3275 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-12400F	Xeon W-3275
1080p
low	183 FPS	198 FPS
medium	168 FPS	162 FPS
high	139 FPS	132 FPS
ultra	119 FPS	106 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	159 FPS
medium	132 FPS	125 FPS
high	106 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	89 FPS	83 FPS
4K
low	87 FPS	87 FPS
medium	81 FPS	74 FPS
high	64 FPS	58 FPS
ultra	49 FPS	47 FPS

Open Core i5-12400F Open Xeon W-3275

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-12400F	Xeon W-3275
1080p
low	471 FPS	607 FPS
medium	397 FPS	522 FPS
high	341 FPS	420 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	371 FPS
1440p
low	407 FPS	514 FPS
medium	351 FPS	447 FPS
high	309 FPS	370 FPS
ultra	265 FPS	306 FPS
4K
low	282 FPS	306 FPS
medium	248 FPS	266 FPS
high	229 FPS	243 FPS
ultra	196 FPS	213 FPS

Open Core i5-12400F Open Xeon W-3275

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-12400F	Xeon W-3275
1080p
low	488 FPS	1025 FPS
medium	488 FPS	928 FPS
high	488 FPS	876 FPS
ultra	488 FPS	793 FPS
1440p
low	488 FPS	808 FPS
medium	488 FPS	715 FPS
high	485 FPS	675 FPS
ultra	434 FPS	605 FPS
4K
low	442 FPS	519 FPS
medium	389 FPS	429 FPS
high	337 FPS	387 FPS
ultra	274 FPS	315 FPS

Open Core i5-12400F Open Xeon W-3275

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-12400F	Xeon W-3275
1080p
low	488 FPS	1032 FPS
medium	488 FPS	1014 FPS
high	488 FPS	885 FPS
ultra	488 FPS	773 FPS
1440p
low	488 FPS	932 FPS
medium	488 FPS	804 FPS
high	488 FPS	702 FPS
ultra	473 FPS	603 FPS
4K
low	488 FPS	680 FPS
medium	450 FPS	591 FPS
high	391 FPS	521 FPS
ultra	330 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-12400F Open Xeon W-3275

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-12400F and Xeon W-3275

Core i5-12400F

The Core i5-12400F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 18 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 19,532 points. Launch price was $180.

Xeon W-3275

The Xeon W-3275 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: 41,267 points. Launch price was $4,449.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-12400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon W-3275 offers 28 cores / 56 threads — the Xeon W-3275 has 22 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the Core i5-12400F versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3275 — a 4.4% clock advantage for the Xeon W-3275 (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core i5-12400F uses the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Xeon W-3275 uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-12400F scores 19,532 against the Xeon W-3275's 41,267 — a 71.5% lead for the Xeon W-3275. L3 cache: 18 MB (total) on the Core i5-12400F vs 38.5 MB on the Xeon W-3275.

Feature	Core i5-12400F	Xeon W-3275
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	28 / 56+367%
Boost Clock	4.4 GHz	4.6 GHz+5%
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	2.5 GHz
L3 Cache	18 MB (total)	38.5 MB+114%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)	28 MB+2140%
Process	Intel 7 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Alder Lake-S (2022)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	19,532	41,267+111%
Cinebench R23 Multi	12,380	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,700	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	657	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-12400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon W-3275 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-12400F versus 3200 on the Xeon W-3275 — the Xeon W-3275 supports 199.4% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon W-3275 supports up to 1024 of RAM compared to 128 GB — 155.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-12400F) vs 6 (Xeon W-3275). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-12400F) vs 64 (Xeon W-3275) — the Xeon W-3275 offers 44 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-12400F) and C621 (Xeon W-3275).

Feature	Core i5-12400F	Xeon W-3275
Socket	LGA1700	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	3200+63900%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+13107100%	1024
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	64+220%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i5-12400F) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon W-3275). Primary use case: Core i5-12400F targets Gaming Performance/Value. Direct competitor: Core i5-12400F rivals Ryzen 5 5600; Xeon W-3275 rivals Threadripper 3970X.

Feature	Core i5-12400F	Xeon W-3275
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, EPT	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Gaming Performance/Value	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-12400F launched at $174 MSRP, while the Xeon W-3275 debuted at $4449. On MSRP ($174 vs $4449), the Core i5-12400F is $4275 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-12400F delivers 112.3 pts/$ vs 9.3 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3275 — making the Core i5-12400F the 169.5% better value option.