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 i5-13400F

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +27.3% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,527 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $1,723 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1675.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 7.2 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $1,723 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 130W, a 65W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA2011 and older memory support.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 25 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-1680 v2, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-1680 v2

2013

Why buy it

✅+25% larger total L3 cache (25 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,579 vs 16,211).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 7.2 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($1,723 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌100% higher power demand at 130W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA2011, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Xeon E5-1680 v2

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +27.3% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,527 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $1,723 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1675.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 7.2 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $1,723 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 130W, a 65W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA2011 and older memory support.

Why buy it

✅+25% larger total L3 cache (25 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 25 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-1680 v2, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (8,579 vs 16,211).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 7.2 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($1,723 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌100% higher power demand at 130W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA2011, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-13400F better than Xeon E5-1680 v2?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon E5-1680 v2 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-13400F 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, Core i5-13400F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 27.3% more average FPS across 3 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-13400F is the better fit. You are getting 89% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 10 cores and 16 threads.

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

Core i5-13400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-13400F is $1,527 cheaper on MSRP at $196 MSRP versus $1,723 MSRP, and it gives you a 27.3% average FPS lead across 3 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 1675.0% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 7.2 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

Core i5-13400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2013), a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of LGA2011, and more multi-core headroom with 10 cores / 16 threads instead of 8/16. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

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 i5-13400F Benchmark Check

Xeon E5-1680 v2 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-1680 v2
1080p
low	171 FPS	167 FPS
medium	158 FPS	145 FPS
high	132 FPS	119 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	140 FPS
medium	123 FPS	118 FPS
high	99 FPS	94 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	76 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	64 FPS
medium	74 FPS	57 FPS
high	59 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	36 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon E5-1680 v2

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-1680 v2
1080p
low	545 FPS	310 FPS
medium	464 FPS	310 FPS
high	389 FPS	297 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	254 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	310 FPS
medium	403 FPS	302 FPS
high	345 FPS	261 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	220 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	217 FPS
medium	247 FPS	196 FPS
high	231 FPS	179 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	147 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon E5-1680 v2

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-1680 v2
1080p
low	530 FPS	310 FPS
medium	449 FPS	310 FPS
high	415 FPS	310 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	310 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	310 FPS
medium	422 FPS	310 FPS
high	382 FPS	310 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	310 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	310 FPS
medium	331 FPS	310 FPS
high	296 FPS	310 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	275 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon E5-1680 v2

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-1680 v2
1080p
low	626 FPS	310 FPS
medium	626 FPS	310 FPS
high	626 FPS	310 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	310 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	310 FPS
medium	626 FPS	310 FPS
high	598 FPS	310 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	310 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	310 FPS
medium	492 FPS	310 FPS
high	439 FPS	310 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	310 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon E5-1680 v2

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Xeon E5-1680 v2

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 E5-1680 v2

The Xeon E5-1680 v2 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Ivy Bridge-EP (2013) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 25 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333, DDR3-1600, DDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 12,396 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Xeon E5-1680 v2 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Core i5-13400F has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 3.9 GHz on the Xeon E5-1680 v2 — a 16.5% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Xeon E5-1680 v2 uses Ivy Bridge-EP (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Xeon E5-1680 v2's 12,396 — a 67.5% lead for the Core i5-13400F. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 16,211 vs 8,579 (61.6% advantage for the Core i5-13400F). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 750, a 105% lead for the Core i5-13400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 4,500 (86.8% advantage for the Core i5-13400F). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 25 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-1680 v2.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-1680 v2
Cores / Threads	10 / 16+25%	8 / 16
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+18%	3.9 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	3 GHz+20%
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	25 MB (total)+25%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)+400%	256K (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm-68%	22 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Ivy Bridge-EP (2013)
PassMark	25,029+102%	12,396
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211+89%	8,579
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407+221%	750
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408+154%	4,500

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon E5-1680 v2 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-13400F versus DDR3-1866 on the Xeon E5-1680 v2 — the Core i5-13400F supports 50% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon E5-1680 v2 supports up to 256 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 28.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 4 (Xeon E5-1680 v2). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 40 (Xeon E5-1680 v2) — the Xeon E5-1680 v2 offers 20 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and C602,X79 (Xeon E5-1680 v2).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-1680 v2
Socket	LGA1700	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+67%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200+67%	DDR3-1866
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	256 GB+33%
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	40+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Xeon E5-1680 v2 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon E5-1680 v2). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming, Xeon E5-1680 v2 targets Server/Workstation. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; Xeon E5-1680 v2 rivals Core i7-4960X.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-1680 v2
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d, EPT
Target Use	Gaming	Server/Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the Xeon E5-1680 v2 debuted at $1723. On MSRP ($196 vs $1723), the Core i5-13400F is $1527 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 7.2 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-1680 v2 — making the Core i5-13400F the 178.7% better value option.