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 i5-9400 vs Xeon E5-2620 v4 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 i5-9400 vs Xeon E5-2620 v4: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i5-9400

2019

Why buy it

✅+1.3% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $225 less on MSRP ($192 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Delivers 119.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 48.8 vs 22.2 PassMark/$ ($192 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 85W, a 20W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while Xeon E5-2620 v4 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-2620 v4 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (9 MB vs 20 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2620 v4, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-2620 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +16.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+122.2% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 9 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅150% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (9,255 vs 9,372).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 22.2 vs 48.8 PassMark/$ ($417 MSRP vs $192 MSRP).
❌30.8% higher power demand at 85W vs 65W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i5-9400 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-9400 better than Xeon E5-2620 v4?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-2620 v4 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-9400 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 i5-9400 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.3% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 6 threads.

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

Core i5-9400 is the better buy right now. Core i5-9400 comes in $225 cheaper on MSRP at $192 MSRP versus $417 MSRP, and it still gives you 1.3% better PassMark. The compromise is that Xeon E5-2620 v4 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 16.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 119.9% better value on MSRP (48.8 vs 22.2 PassMark/$), 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 i5-9400 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2016) and more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 6 threads instead of 8/16. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i5-9400 vs Xeon E5-2620 v4 Technical Specifications

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

Core i5-9400

The Core i5-9400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake (2017−2019) architecture. It features 6 cores and 6 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 4.1 GHz. L3 cache: 9 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2666. Passmark benchmark score: 9,372 points. Launch price was $182.

Xeon E5-2620 v4

The Xeon E5-2620 v4 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 June 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 85 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 9,255 points. Launch price was $417.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-9400 packs 6 cores / 6 threads, while the Xeon E5-2620 v4 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Xeon E5-2620 v4 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.1 GHz on the Core i5-9400 versus 3 GHz on the Xeon E5-2620 v4 — a 31% clock advantage for the Core i5-9400 (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The Core i5-9400 uses the Coffee Lake (2017−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5-2620 v4 uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-9400 scores 9,372 against the Xeon E5-2620 v4's 9,255 — a 1.3% lead for the Core i5-9400. L3 cache: 9 MB (total) on the Core i5-9400 vs 20 MB on the Xeon E5-2620 v4.

Feature	Core i5-9400	Xeon E5-2620 v4
Cores / Threads	6 / 6	8 / 16+33%
Boost Clock	4.1 GHz+37%	3 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+38%	2.1 GHz
L3 Cache	9 MB (total)	20 MB+122%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+12700%	2 MB
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Coffee Lake (2017−2019)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	9,372+1%	9,255

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-9400 uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5-2620 v4 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i5-9400 versus DDR4-2133 on the Xeon E5-2620 v4 — the Core i5-9400 supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon E5-2620 v4 supports up to 1536 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 1100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-9400) vs 4 (Xeon E5-2620 v4). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-9400) vs 40 (Xeon E5-2620 v4) — the Xeon E5-2620 v4 offers 24 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Core i5-9400	Xeon E5-2620 v4
Socket	LGA1151	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666+25%	DDR4-2133
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	1536 GB+1100%
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	40+150%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-9400) / not specified (Xeon E5-2620 v4). The Core i5-9400 includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the Xeon E5-2620 v4 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-9400 targets Desktop.

Feature	Core i5-9400	Xeon E5-2620 v4
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics 630	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	—
Target Use	Desktop	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i5-9400 was priced at $192, while the Xeon E5-2620 v4 came in at $417. On launch pricing ($192 vs $417), Core i5-9400 was $225 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-9400 delivers 48.8 pts/$ vs 22.2 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2620 v4 — making the Core i5-9400 the 75% better value option.

Feature	Core i5-9400	Xeon E5-2620 v4
MSRP	$192-54%	$417
Performance per Dollar	48.8+120%	22.2
Release Date	2019	2016

Search Core i5-9400 on Amazon

Search Xeon E5-2620 v4 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.