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 i5-13400F

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $2,527 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $2,723 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1935.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 6.3 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $2,723 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 165W, a 100W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA2011-3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 25 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2689 v4, which brings 10 cores / 20 threads.

Xeon E5-2689 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅+25% larger total L3 cache (25 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 10 cores / 20 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (17,084 vs 25,029).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.3 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($2,723 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌153.8% higher power demand at 165W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA2011-3 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Xeon E5-2689 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $2,527 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $2,723 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1935.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 6.3 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $2,723 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 165W, a 100W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA2011-3 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅+25% larger total L3 cache (25 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 10 cores / 20 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 25 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2689 v4, which brings 10 cores / 20 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (17,084 vs 25,029).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.3 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($2,723 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌153.8% higher power demand at 165W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA2011-3 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-13400F better than Xeon E5-2689 v4?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon E5-2689 v4 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-13400F 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 i5-13400F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 11.0% 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 better fit. You are getting 46.5% better PassMark, backed by 10 cores and 16 threads.

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

Core i5-13400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-13400F is $2,527 cheaper on MSRP at $196 MSRP versus $2,723 MSRP, and it gives you a 11.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 1935.4% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 6.3 PassMark/$), 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 i5-13400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2016), a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of LGA2011-3, and more multi-core headroom with 10 cores / 16 threads instead of 10/20. 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 i5-13400F Benchmark Check

Xeon E5-2689 v4 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-2689 v4
1080p
low	171 FPS	166 FPS
medium	158 FPS	144 FPS
high	132 FPS	117 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	97 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	139 FPS
medium	123 FPS	117 FPS
high	99 FPS	93 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	76 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	63 FPS
medium	74 FPS	57 FPS
high	59 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	35 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon E5-2689 v4

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-2689 v4
1080p
low	545 FPS	379 FPS
medium	464 FPS	338 FPS
high	389 FPS	291 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	248 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	327 FPS
medium	403 FPS	296 FPS
high	345 FPS	256 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	216 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	212 FPS
medium	247 FPS	191 FPS
high	231 FPS	175 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	144 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon E5-2689 v4

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-2689 v4
1080p
low	530 FPS	427 FPS
medium	449 FPS	427 FPS
high	415 FPS	427 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	427 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	427 FPS
medium	422 FPS	427 FPS
high	382 FPS	427 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	427 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	427 FPS
medium	331 FPS	387 FPS
high	296 FPS	352 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	290 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon E5-2689 v4

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-2689 v4
1080p
low	626 FPS	427 FPS
medium	626 FPS	427 FPS
high	626 FPS	427 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	427 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	427 FPS
medium	626 FPS	427 FPS
high	598 FPS	427 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	427 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	427 FPS
medium	492 FPS	427 FPS
high	439 FPS	427 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	367 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon E5-2689 v4

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Xeon E5-2689 v4

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 E5-2689 v4

The Xeon E5-2689 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 10 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 25 MB. L2 cache: 2.5 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011-3. Thermal design power (TDP): 165 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 17,084 points. Launch price was $2,723.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, matching the Xeon E5-2689 v4's 10 cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 3.8 GHz on the Xeon E5-2689 v4 — a 19% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.1 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Xeon E5-2689 v4 uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Xeon E5-2689 v4's 17,084 — a 37.7% lead for the Core i5-13400F. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 25 MB on the Xeon E5-2689 v4.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-2689 v4
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	10 / 20
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+21%	3.8 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	3.1 GHz+24%
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	25 MB+25%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)	2.5 MB+100%
Process	Intel 7 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	25,029+47%	17,084
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211	—
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon E5-2689 v4 uses LGA2011-3 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-2689 v4
Socket	LGA1700	LGA2011-3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+67%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	—
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	20	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F) / not specified (Xeon E5-2689 v4). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-2689 v4
Integrated GPU	No	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	—
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the Xeon E5-2689 v4 debuted at $2723. On MSRP ($196 vs $2723), the Core i5-13400F is $2527 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 6.3 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2689 v4 — making the Core i5-13400F the 181.3% better value option.