
Core i5-13400F

Xeon W-3245
Core i5-13400F vs Xeon W-3245 Performance Spectrum
About PassMark
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 W-3245 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.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Core i5-13400F vs Xeon W-3245: 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
2023Why buy it
- ✅Costs $2,003 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $2,199 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 803.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 14.1 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $2,199 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 205W, a 140W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-3245.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3245 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,211 vs 18,000).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3245, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.
Xeon W-3245
2019Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +16.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅220% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.1 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($2,199 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
- ❌215.4% higher power demand at 205W 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-3245 better than Core i5-13400F?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Core i5-13400F vs Xeon W-3245 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 W-3245
The Xeon W-3245 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 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 4.6 GHz. L3 cache: 22 MB. L2 cache: 16 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 205 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 31,089 points. Launch price was $1,999.
Processing Power
The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Xeon W-3245 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Xeon W-3245 has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3245 — identical boost frequencies (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Xeon W-3245 uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Xeon W-3245's 31,089 — a 21.6% lead for the Xeon W-3245. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 16,211 vs 18,000 (10.5% advantage for the Xeon W-3245). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 1,353, a 56.1% lead for the Core i5-13400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 11,698 (2.5% advantage for the Xeon W-3245). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 22 MB on the Xeon W-3245.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Xeon W-3245 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 10 / 16 | 16 / 32+60% |
| Boost Clock | 4.6 GHz | 4.6 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz | 3.2 GHz+28% |
| L3 Cache | 20 MB (total) | 22 MB+10% |
| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 16 MB+1180% |
| Process | Intel 7 nm-50% | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) | Cascade Lake (2019−2020) |
| PassMark | 25,029 | 31,089+24% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 16,211 | 18,000+11% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,407+78% | 1,353 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 11,408 | 11,698+3% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon W-3245 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 DDR4-2933 on the Xeon W-3245 — the Core i5-13400F supports 63.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon W-3245 supports up to 1024 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 433.3% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 6 (Xeon W-3245). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 64 (Xeon W-3245) — the Xeon W-3245 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-3245).
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Xeon W-3245 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | LGA3647 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+67% | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200+64% | 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-3245 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-3245). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, Xeon W-3245 targets Professional Workstation. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; Xeon W-3245 rivals Threadripper 2950X.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Xeon W-3245 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d, EPT |
| Target Use | Gaming | Professional Workstation |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Core i5-13400F was priced at $196, while the Xeon W-3245 came in at $2199. On launch pricing ($196 vs $2199), Core i5-13400F was $2003 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 14.1 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3245 — making the Core i5-13400F the 160.1% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-13400F | Xeon W-3245 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $196-91% | $2199 |
| Performance per Dollar | 127.7+806% | 14.1 |
| Release Date | 2023 | 2019 |
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.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.















