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

✅Costs $2,803 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $2,999 MSRP).
✅Delivers 730.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 15.4 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $2,999 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 255W, a 190W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-3175X.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3175X across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,211 vs 31,350).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 39 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3175X, which brings 28 cores / 56 threads and 48 PCIe lanes.

Xeon W-3175X

2018

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +21.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+92.5% larger total L3 cache (39 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 28 cores / 56 threads, plus 48 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅140% more PCIe lanes (48 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.4 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($2,999 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌292.3% higher power demand at 255W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Xeon W-3175X

2018

Why buy it

✅Costs $2,803 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $2,999 MSRP).
✅Delivers 730.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 15.4 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $2,999 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 255W, a 190W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-3175X.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +21.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+92.5% larger total L3 cache (39 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 28 cores / 56 threads, plus 48 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅140% more PCIe lanes (48 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3175X across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,211 vs 31,350).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 39 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3175X, which brings 28 cores / 56 threads and 48 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.4 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($2,999 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌292.3% higher power demand at 255W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W-3175X better than Core i5-13400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-3175X 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, Xeon W-3175X is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 21.7% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon W-3175X is the better fit. You are getting 93.4% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 28 cores and 56 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 92.5% larger total L3 cache (39 MB vs 20 MB).

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

Xeon W-3175X is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-13400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon W-3175X is 1430.1% more expensive on MSRP at $2,999 MSRP versus $196 MSRP, and it gives you a 21.7% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-13400F is also 730.3% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 15.4 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Core i5-13400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2018) 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 i5-13400F Benchmark Check

Xeon W-3175X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon W-3175X
1080p
low	171 FPS	195 FPS
medium	158 FPS	157 FPS
high	132 FPS	128 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	99 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	160 FPS
medium	123 FPS	125 FPS
high	99 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	73 FPS
medium	74 FPS	60 FPS
high	59 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	39 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon W-3175X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon W-3175X
1080p
low	545 FPS	443 FPS
medium	464 FPS	387 FPS
high	389 FPS	316 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	260 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	382 FPS
medium	403 FPS	336 FPS
high	345 FPS	278 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	221 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	238 FPS
medium	247 FPS	211 FPS
high	231 FPS	187 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	154 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon W-3175X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon W-3175X
1080p
low	530 FPS	1018 FPS
medium	449 FPS	908 FPS
high	415 FPS	877 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	790 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	734 FPS
medium	422 FPS	634 FPS
high	382 FPS	602 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	538 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	469 FPS
medium	331 FPS	369 FPS
high	296 FPS	329 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	270 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon W-3175X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon W-3175X
1080p
low	626 FPS	938 FPS
medium	626 FPS	850 FPS
high	626 FPS	735 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	639 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	743 FPS
medium	626 FPS	650 FPS
high	598 FPS	559 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	479 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	536 FPS
medium	492 FPS	476 FPS
high	439 FPS	419 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	363 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon W-3175X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Xeon W-3175X

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 W-3175X

The Xeon W-3175X is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 December 2018 (6 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (server) (2017−2018) architecture. It features 28 cores and 56 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 38.5 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 255 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2666. Passmark benchmark score: 46,125 points. Launch price was $2,999.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Xeon W-3175X offers 28 cores / 56 threads — the Xeon W-3175X has 18 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 3.8 GHz on the Xeon W-3175X — 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 W-3175X uses Skylake (server) (2017−2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Xeon W-3175X's 46,125 — a 59.3% lead for the Xeon W-3175X. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 16,211 vs 31,350 (63.7% advantage for the Xeon W-3175X). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 1,467, a 48.5% lead for the Core i5-13400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 17,358 (41.4% advantage for the Xeon W-3175X). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 38.5 MB (total) on the Xeon W-3175X.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon W-3175X
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	28 / 56+180%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+21%	3.8 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	3.1 GHz+24%
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	38.5 MB (total)+93%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)+25%	1 MB (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Skylake (server) (2017−2018)
PassMark	25,029	46,125+84%
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211	31,350+93%
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407+64%	1,467
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408	17,358+52%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon W-3175X uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-13400F versus DDR4-2666 on the Xeon W-3175X — the Core i5-13400F supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon W-3175X supports up to 512 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 90.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 6 (Xeon W-3175X). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 48 (Xeon W-3175X) — the Xeon W-3175X offers 28 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and Intel C621 (Xeon W-3175X).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon W-3175X
Socket	LGA1700	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+67%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200+25%	DDR4-2666
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	512 GB+167%
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	48+140%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Xeon W-3175X has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the Xeon W-3175X supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon W-3175X
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the Xeon W-3175X debuted at $2999. On MSRP ($196 vs $2999), the Core i5-13400F is $2803 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 15.4 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3175X — making the Core i5-13400F the 157% better value option.