Core i5-7400 vs Xeon E3-1290

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 i5-7400 vs Xeon E3-1290 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 i5-7400 vs Xeon E3-1290: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i5-7400

2017

Why buy it

✅+0.9% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 65W instead of 95W, a 30W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 630, while Xeon E3-1290 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock), unlike Xeon E3-1290.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E3-1290 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (6 MB vs 8 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E3-1290, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $294 MSRP, while Xeon E3-1290 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Xeon E3-1290

2011

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 6 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 8 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (5,429 vs 5,477).
❌46.2% higher power demand at 95W vs 65W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i5-7400 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-7400.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-7400 better than Xeon E3-1290?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E3-1290 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-7400 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-7400 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i5-7400 is the better buy right now. Core i5-7400 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $294 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.9% better PassMark. The compromise is that Xeon E3-1290 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 12.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (18.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 i5-7400 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 4/8. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i5-7400 vs Xeon E3-1290 Technical Specifications

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

Core i5-7400

The Core i5-7400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 January 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 5,477 points. Launch price was $182.

Xeon E3-1290

The Xeon E3-1290 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 29 May 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,429 points. Launch price was $885.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-7400 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, matching the Xeon E3-1290's 4 cores. Boost clocks reach 3.5 GHz on the Core i5-7400 versus 4 GHz on the Xeon E3-1290 — a 13.3% clock advantage for the Xeon E3-1290 (base: 3 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The Core i5-7400 uses the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E3-1290 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-7400 scores 5,477 against the Xeon E3-1290's 5,429 — a 0.9% lead for the Core i5-7400. L3 cache: 6 MB (total) on the Core i5-7400 vs 8 MB (total) on the Xeon E3-1290.

Feature	Core i5-7400	Xeon E3-1290
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 8
Boost Clock	3.5 GHz	4 GHz+14%
Base Clock	3 GHz	3.6 GHz+20%
L3 Cache	6 MB (total)	8 MB (total)+33%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Kaby Lake (2016−2019)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	5,477	5,429
Cinebench R23 Multi	3,359	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,215	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	3,517	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-7400 uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E3-1290 uses LGA1155 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-7400	Xeon E3-1290
Socket	LGA1151	LGA1155
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2400	—
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i5-7400) / not specified (Xeon E3-1290). The Core i5-7400 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 630), while the Xeon E3-1290 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-7400 targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-7400 rivals Ryzen 3 3300X.