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: +16.5% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+21.2% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 17 MB).
✅Costs $1,123 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $1,319 MSRP).
✅Delivers 822.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 13.8 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $1,319 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 160W, a 95W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3225, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Xeon W-3225

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅220% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (11,500 vs 16,211).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (17 MB vs 20 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.8 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($1,319 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌146.2% higher power demand at 160W vs 65W.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Xeon W-3225

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +16.5% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+21.2% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 17 MB).
✅Costs $1,123 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $1,319 MSRP).
✅Delivers 822.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 13.8 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $1,319 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 160W, a 95W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅220% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3225, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (11,500 vs 16,211).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (17 MB vs 20 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.8 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($1,319 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌146.2% higher power demand at 160W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-13400F better than Xeon W-3225?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-3225 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 16.5% 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, Core i5-13400F is the better fit. You are getting 41% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 10 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 21.2% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 17 MB).

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

Core i5-13400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-13400F is $1,123 cheaper on MSRP at $196 MSRP versus $1,319 MSRP, and it gives you a 16.5% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 822.9% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 13.8 PassMark/$), 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 2019), a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of LGA3647, 21.2% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 17 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 10 cores / 16 threads instead of 8/16. 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-3225 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon W-3225
1080p
low	171 FPS	211 FPS
medium	158 FPS	166 FPS
high	132 FPS	135 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	102 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	173 FPS
medium	123 FPS	134 FPS
high	99 FPS	109 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	82 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	85 FPS
medium	74 FPS	71 FPS
high	59 FPS	56 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	44 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon W-3225

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon W-3225
1080p
low	545 FPS	380 FPS
medium	464 FPS	314 FPS
high	389 FPS	279 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	247 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	342 FPS
medium	403 FPS	292 FPS
high	345 FPS	258 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	222 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	248 FPS
medium	247 FPS	216 FPS
high	231 FPS	201 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	173 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon W-3225

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon W-3225
1080p
low	530 FPS	456 FPS
medium	449 FPS	456 FPS
high	415 FPS	456 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	456 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	456 FPS
medium	422 FPS	456 FPS
high	382 FPS	456 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	456 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	456 FPS
medium	331 FPS	429 FPS
high	296 FPS	375 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	302 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon W-3225

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon W-3225
1080p
low	626 FPS	456 FPS
medium	626 FPS	456 FPS
high	626 FPS	456 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	456 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	456 FPS
medium	626 FPS	456 FPS
high	598 FPS	456 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	456 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	456 FPS
medium	492 FPS	456 FPS
high	439 FPS	456 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon W-3225

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Xeon W-3225

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-3225

The Xeon W-3225 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 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 16.5 MB. L2 cache: 8 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 160 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2666. Passmark benchmark score: 18,251 points. Launch price was $1,199.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Xeon W-3225 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Core i5-13400F has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 4.4 GHz on the Xeon W-3225 — a 4.4% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.7 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Xeon W-3225 uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Xeon W-3225's 18,251 — a 31.3% lead for the Core i5-13400F. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 16,211 vs 11,500 (34% advantage for the Core i5-13400F). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 1,150, a 70.7% lead for the Core i5-13400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 9,100 (22.5% advantage for the Core i5-13400F). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 16.5 MB on the Xeon W-3225.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon W-3225
Cores / Threads	10 / 16+25%	8 / 16
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+5%	4.4 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	3.7 GHz+48%
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)+21%	16.5 MB
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)	8 MB+540%
Process	Intel 7 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	25,029+37%	18,251
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211+41%	11,500
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407+109%	1,150
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408+25%	9,100

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon W-3225 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-13400F versus DDR4-2933 on the Xeon W-3225 — the Core i5-13400F supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon W-3225 supports up to 1024 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 136.8% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 6 (Xeon W-3225). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 64 (Xeon W-3225) — the Xeon W-3225 offers 44 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and C621 (Xeon W-3225).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon W-3225
Socket	LGA1700	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200+25%	DDR4-2933
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	1024 GB+433%
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	64+220%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon W-3225 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon W-3225). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, Xeon W-3225 targets Workstation. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; Xeon W-3225 rivals Ryzen Threadripper 2920X.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon W-3225
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d, EPT
Target Use	Gaming	Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the Xeon W-3225 debuted at $1319. On MSRP ($196 vs $1319), the Core i5-13400F is $1123 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 13.8 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3225 — making the Core i5-13400F the 160.9% better value option.