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.

Core i5-13400F vs Xeon E5-2687W v4 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core i5-13400F vs Xeon E5-2687W v4: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,945 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $2,141 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1449.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 8.2 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $2,141 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 160W, a 95W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA2011 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 30 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2687W v4, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-2687W v4

2016

Why buy it

✅+50% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 12 cores / 24 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 i5-13400F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (8,255 vs 11,408).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.2 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($2,141 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌146.2% higher power demand at 160W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA2011 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-13400F better than Xeon E5-2687W v4?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-2687W v4 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-13400F is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i5-13400F is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 9.3% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-13400F is the stronger fit. You are getting 38.2% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 10 cores and 16 threads.

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

Core i5-13400F is the better buy right now. Core i5-13400F comes in $1,945 cheaper on MSRP at $196 MSRP versus $2,141 MSRP, and it still gives you a 9.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 1449.9% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 8.2 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Core i5-13400F makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2016), a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of LGA2011, and more multi-core headroom with 10 cores / 16 threads instead of 12/24. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

Core i5-13400F vs Xeon E5-2687W v4 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core i5-13400F

The Core i5-13400F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture. It features 10 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.6 GHz. L3 cache: 20 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, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 25,029 points. Launch price was $196.

Xeon E5-2687W v4

The Xeon E5-2687W 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 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 30 MB. L2 cache: 3 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 160 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 17,640 points. Launch price was $2,141.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Xeon E5-2687W v4 offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Xeon E5-2687W v4 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 3.5 GHz on the Xeon E5-2687W v4 — a 27.2% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Xeon E5-2687W v4 uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Xeon E5-2687W v4's 17,640 — a 34.6% lead for the Core i5-13400F. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 1,063, a 77.5% lead for the Core i5-13400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 8,255 (32.1% advantage for the Core i5-13400F). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 30 MB on the Xeon E5-2687W v4.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-2687W v4
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	12 / 24+20%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+31%	3.5 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	3 GHz+20%
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	30 MB+50%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)	3 MB+140%
Process	Intel 7 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	25,029+42%	17,640
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211	—
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407+126%	1,063
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408+38%	8,255

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon E5-2687W v4 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-13400F versus DDR4-2400 on the Xeon E5-2687W v4 — the Core i5-13400F supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon E5-2687W v4 supports up to 1536 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 4 (Xeon E5-2687W v4). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 40 (Xeon E5-2687W v4) — the Xeon E5-2687W v4 offers 20 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and C610,X99 (Xeon E5-2687W v4).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-2687W v4
Socket	LGA1700	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+67%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200+100%	DDR4-2400
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	1536 GB+700%
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	40+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F) vs Yes (Xeon E5-2687W v4). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-2687W v4
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	Yes
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i5-13400F was priced at $196, while the Xeon E5-2687W v4 came in at $2141. On launch pricing ($196 vs $2141), Core i5-13400F was $1945 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 8.2 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2687W v4 — making the Core i5-13400F the 175.8% better value option.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-2687W v4
MSRP	$196-91%	$2141
Performance per Dollar	127.7+1457%	8.2
Release Date	2023	2016

Search Core i5-13400F on Amazon

Search Xeon E5-2687W v4 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.