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 i5-12400F

2022

Why buy it

✅Costs $394 less on MSRP ($174 MSRP vs $568 MSRP).
✅Delivers 129.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 112.3 vs 48.9 PassMark/$ ($174 MSRP vs $568 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 80W, a 15W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E-2478.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E-2478 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (19,532 vs 27,776).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (18 MB vs 24 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E-2478, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.

Xeon E-2478

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 18 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 48.9 vs 112.3 PassMark/$ ($568 MSRP vs $174 MSRP).
❌23.1% higher power demand at 80W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-12400F.

Core i5-12400F

2022

Xeon E-2478

2023

Why buy it

✅Costs $394 less on MSRP ($174 MSRP vs $568 MSRP).
✅Delivers 129.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 112.3 vs 48.9 PassMark/$ ($174 MSRP vs $568 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 80W, a 15W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E-2478.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 18 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E-2478 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (19,532 vs 27,776).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (18 MB vs 24 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E-2478, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 48.9 vs 112.3 PassMark/$ ($568 MSRP vs $174 MSRP).
❌23.1% higher power demand at 80W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-12400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E-2478 better than Core i5-12400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon E-2478 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-12400F 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, Xeon E-2478 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 3.0% 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 E-2478 is the better fit. You are getting 42.2% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 33.3% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 18 MB).

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

Xeon E-2478 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-12400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon E-2478 is 226.4% more expensive on MSRP at $568 MSRP versus $174 MSRP, and it gives you a 3.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-12400F is also 129.5% better value on MSRP (112.3 vs 48.9 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Xeon E-2478 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2022), 33.3% larger total L3 cache (24 MB vs 18 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 16 threads instead of 6/12. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

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 i5-12400F Benchmark Check

Xeon E-2478 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-12400F	Xeon E-2478
1080p
low	183 FPS	257 FPS
medium	168 FPS	246 FPS
high	139 FPS	205 FPS
ultra	119 FPS	176 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	222 FPS
medium	132 FPS	190 FPS
high	106 FPS	152 FPS
ultra	89 FPS	133 FPS
4K
low	87 FPS	153 FPS
medium	81 FPS	130 FPS
high	64 FPS	99 FPS
ultra	49 FPS	88 FPS

Open Core i5-12400F Open Xeon E-2478

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-12400F	Xeon E-2478
1080p
low	471 FPS	616 FPS
medium	397 FPS	522 FPS
high	341 FPS	443 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	404 FPS
1440p
low	407 FPS	533 FPS
medium	351 FPS	467 FPS
high	309 FPS	398 FPS
ultra	265 FPS	342 FPS
4K
low	282 FPS	313 FPS
medium	248 FPS	280 FPS
high	229 FPS	267 FPS
ultra	196 FPS	232 FPS

Open Core i5-12400F Open Xeon E-2478

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-12400F	Xeon E-2478
1080p
low	488 FPS	646 FPS
medium	488 FPS	529 FPS
high	488 FPS	466 FPS
ultra	488 FPS	404 FPS
1440p
low	488 FPS	588 FPS
medium	488 FPS	489 FPS
high	485 FPS	425 FPS
ultra	434 FPS	369 FPS
4K
low	442 FPS	424 FPS
medium	389 FPS	369 FPS
high	337 FPS	335 FPS
ultra	274 FPS	285 FPS

Open Core i5-12400F Open Xeon E-2478

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-12400F	Xeon E-2478
1080p
low	488 FPS	694 FPS
medium	488 FPS	694 FPS
high	488 FPS	694 FPS
ultra	488 FPS	652 FPS
1440p
low	488 FPS	694 FPS
medium	488 FPS	694 FPS
high	488 FPS	608 FPS
ultra	473 FPS	535 FPS
4K
low	488 FPS	536 FPS
medium	450 FPS	490 FPS
high	391 FPS	438 FPS
ultra	330 FPS	382 FPS

Open Core i5-12400F Open Xeon E-2478

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-12400F and Xeon E-2478

Core i5-12400F

The Core i5-12400F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 18 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: DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 19,532 points. Launch price was $180.

Xeon E-2478

The Xeon E-2478 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 December 2023 (1 year ago). It is based on the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 5.2 GHz. L3 cache: 24 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 27,776 points. Launch price was $568.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-12400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon E-2478 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Xeon E-2478 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the Core i5-12400F versus 5.2 GHz on the Xeon E-2478 — a 16.7% clock advantage for the Xeon E-2478 (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Core i5-12400F uses the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Xeon E-2478 uses Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-12400F scores 19,532 against the Xeon E-2478's 27,776 — a 34.9% lead for the Xeon E-2478. L3 cache: 18 MB (total) on the Core i5-12400F vs 24 MB (total) on the Xeon E-2478.

Feature	Core i5-12400F	Xeon E-2478
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 16+33%
Boost Clock	4.4 GHz	5.2 GHz+18%
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	2.8 GHz+12%
L3 Cache	18 MB (total)	24 MB (total)+33%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)	2 MB (per core)+60%
Process	Intel 7 nm	Intel 7 nm
Architecture	Alder Lake-S (2022)	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)
PassMark	19,532	27,776+42%
Cinebench R23 Multi	12,380	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,700	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	657	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the LGA1700 socket with PCIe 3.0. Both support up to DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 memory speed. Both support up to 128 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 20 PCIe lanes.

Feature	Core i5-12400F	Xeon E-2478
Socket	LGA1700	LGA1700
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	DDR5-4800
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	128 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	20

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i5-12400F) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon E-2478). Primary use case: Core i5-12400F targets Gaming Performance/Value, Xeon E-2478 targets Server. Direct competitor: Core i5-12400F rivals Ryzen 5 5600.

Feature	Core i5-12400F	Xeon E-2478
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, EPT	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Gaming Performance/Value	Server

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-12400F launched at $174 MSRP, while the Xeon E-2478 debuted at $568. On MSRP ($174 vs $568), the Core i5-12400F is $394 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-12400F delivers 112.3 pts/$ vs 48.9 pts/$ for the Xeon E-2478 — making the Core i5-12400F the 78.6% better value option.