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 i5-8400T vs Xeon E5-2667 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 i5-8400T vs Xeon E5-2667: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i5-8400T

2018

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,370 less on MSRP ($182 MSRP vs $1,552 MSRP).
✅Delivers 750.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 40.8 vs 4.8 PassMark/$ ($182 MSRP vs $1,552 MSRP).
✅Draws 35W instead of 130W, a 95W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while Xeon E5-2667 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E5-2667.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-2667 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (7,426 vs 7,442).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (9 MB vs 15 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2667, which brings 6 cores / 12 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-2667

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (15 MB vs 9 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 6 cores / 12 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅150% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 4.8 vs 40.8 PassMark/$ ($1,552 MSRP vs $182 MSRP).
❌271.4% higher power demand at 130W vs 35W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i5-8400T can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-8400T.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5-2667 better than Core i5-8400T?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-2667 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-8400T is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon E5-2667 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 12.9% 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, Xeon E5-2667 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 66.7% larger total L3 cache (15 MB vs 9 MB).

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

Xeon E5-2667 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Xeon E5-2667 comes in 752.7% more expensive on MSRP at $1,552 MSRP versus $182 MSRP, and it still gives you a 12.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-8400T only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2018 platform. Even with 750.9% better value on paper (40.8 vs 4.8 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1151.

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

Core i5-8400T makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2018 vs 2012). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core i5-8400T vs Xeon E5-2667 Technical Specifications

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

Core i5-8400T

The Core i5-8400T is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 April 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake (2017−2019) architecture. It features 6 cores and 6 threads. Base frequency is 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.3 GHz. L3 cache: 9 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2666. Passmark benchmark score: 7,426 points. Launch price was $182.

Xeon E5-2667

The Xeon E5-2667 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 6 March 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 15360 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 7,442 points. Launch price was $714.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-8400T packs 6 cores / 6 threads, matching the Xeon E5-2667's 6 cores. Boost clocks reach 3.3 GHz on the Core i5-8400T versus 3.5 GHz on the Xeon E5-2667 — a 5.9% clock advantage for the Xeon E5-2667 (base: 1.7 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The Core i5-8400T uses the Coffee Lake (2017−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5-2667 uses Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-8400T scores 7,426 against the Xeon E5-2667's 7,442 — a 0.2% lead for the Xeon E5-2667. L3 cache: 9 MB (total) on the Core i5-8400T vs 15360 kB (total) on the Xeon E5-2667.

Feature	Core i5-8400T	Xeon E5-2667
Cores / Threads	6 / 6	6 / 12
Boost Clock	3.3 GHz	3.5 GHz+6%
Base Clock	1.7 GHz	2.9 GHz+71%
L3 Cache	9 MB (total)	15360 kB (total)+67%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Coffee Lake (2017−2019)	Sandy Bridge-EP (2012)
PassMark	7,426	7,442
Cinebench R23 Multi	3,737	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,092	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	3,816	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-8400T uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5-2667 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-8400T versus DDR3 1600 MHz on the Xeon E5-2667 — the Core i5-8400T supports 66.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon E5-2667 supports up to 384 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 200% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-8400T) vs 4 (Xeon E5-2667). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-8400T) vs 40 (Xeon E5-2667) — the Xeon E5-2667 offers 24 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H310,B360,H370,Q370,Z370,Z390 (Core i5-8400T) and Intel C602,Intel X79 (Xeon E5-2667).

Feature	Core i5-8400T	Xeon E5-2667
Socket	LGA1151	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666+67%	DDR3 1600 MHz
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	384 GB+200%
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	40+150%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: Yes (Core i5-8400T) vs true (Xeon E5-2667). The Core i5-8400T includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the Xeon E5-2667 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Xeon E5-2667 targets Server.

Feature	Core i5-8400T	Xeon E5-2667
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics 630	—
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	Yes	true
Target Use	—	Server

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i5-8400T was priced at $182, while the Xeon E5-2667 came in at $1552. On launch pricing ($182 vs $1552), Core i5-8400T was $1370 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-8400T delivers 40.8 pts/$ vs 4.8 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2667 — making the Core i5-8400T the 157.9% better value option.

Feature	Core i5-8400T	Xeon E5-2667
MSRP	$182-88%	$1552
Performance per Dollar	40.8+750%	4.8
Release Date	2018	2012

Search Core i5-8400T on Amazon

Search Xeon E5-2667 on Amazon

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.