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: +13.2% higher average FPS across 28 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $6,811 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $7,007 MSRP).
✅Delivers 4999.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 2.5 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $7,007 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 135W, a 70W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA2011 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,211 vs 18,730).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 55 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-4669 v4, which brings 22 cores / 44 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-4669 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅+15.5% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅+175% larger total L3 cache (55 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 22 cores / 44 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 28 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 2.5 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($7,007 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌107.7% higher power demand at 135W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA2011 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Xeon E5-4669 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +13.2% higher average FPS across 28 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $6,811 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $7,007 MSRP).
✅Delivers 4999.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 2.5 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $7,007 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 135W, a 70W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA2011 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅+15.5% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅+175% larger total L3 cache (55 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 22 cores / 44 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,211 vs 18,730).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 55 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-4669 v4, which brings 22 cores / 44 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-13400F across 28 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 2.5 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($7,007 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌107.7% higher power demand at 135W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA2011 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-13400F better than Xeon E5-4669 v4?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon E5-4669 v4 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 streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E5-4669 v4 is the better fit. You are getting 15.5% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 22 cores and 44 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 175% larger total L3 cache (55 MB vs 20 MB).

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

Core i5-13400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-13400F is $6,811 cheaper on MSRP at $196 MSRP versus $7,007 MSRP, and it gives you a 13.2% average FPS lead across 28 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that Xeon E5-4669 v4 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 15.5% better Cinebench R23 multi-core. It is also 4999.4% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 2.5 PassMark/$), 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 2016) and a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of LGA2011. 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 E5-4669 v4 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-4669 v4
1080p
low	171 FPS	180 FPS
medium	158 FPS	157 FPS
high	132 FPS	124 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	99 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	149 FPS
medium	123 FPS	125 FPS
high	99 FPS	95 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	69 FPS
medium	74 FPS	61 FPS
high	59 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	38 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon E5-4669 v4

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-4669 v4
1080p
low	545 FPS	212 FPS
medium	464 FPS	192 FPS
high	389 FPS	164 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	133 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	182 FPS
medium	403 FPS	166 FPS
high	345 FPS	144 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	112 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	115 FPS
medium	247 FPS	105 FPS
high	231 FPS	93 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	75 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon E5-4669 v4

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-4669 v4
1080p
low	530 FPS	439 FPS
medium	449 FPS	439 FPS
high	415 FPS	439 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	413 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	439 FPS
medium	422 FPS	439 FPS
high	382 FPS	391 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	350 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	404 FPS
medium	331 FPS	325 FPS
high	296 FPS	289 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	240 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon E5-4669 v4

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-4669 v4
1080p
low	626 FPS	439 FPS
medium	626 FPS	439 FPS
high	626 FPS	439 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	439 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	439 FPS
medium	626 FPS	439 FPS
high	598 FPS	439 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	439 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	439 FPS
medium	492 FPS	439 FPS
high	439 FPS	408 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	350 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon E5-4669 v4

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Xeon E5-4669 v4

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 E5-4669 v4

The Xeon E5-4669 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 22 cores and 44 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 55 MB. L2 cache: 5.5 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 135 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 17,547 points. Launch price was $7,007.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Xeon E5-4669 v4 offers 22 cores / 44 threads — the Xeon E5-4669 v4 has 12 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 3 GHz on the Xeon E5-4669 v4 — a 42.1% clock advantage for the Core i5-13400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Xeon E5-4669 v4 uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Xeon E5-4669 v4's 17,547 — a 35.1% lead for the Core i5-13400F. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 16,211 vs 18,730 (14.4% advantage for the Xeon E5-4669 v4). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,407 vs 825, a 97.9% lead for the Core i5-13400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 11,408 vs 2,882 (119.3% advantage for the Core i5-13400F). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 55 MB on the Xeon E5-4669 v4.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-4669 v4
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	22 / 44+120%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz+53%	3 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz+14%	2.2 GHz
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	55 MB+175%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)	5.5 MB+340%
Process	Intel 7 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	25,029+43%	17,547
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211	18,730+16%
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407+192%	825
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408+296%	2,882

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon E5-4669 v4 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 DDR4-2400 on the Xeon E5-4669 v4 — the Core i5-13400F supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon E5-4669 v4 supports up to 1536 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 155.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 4 (Xeon E5-4669 v4). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 40 (Xeon E5-4669 v4) — the Xeon E5-4669 v4 offers 20 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and C610 (Xeon E5-4669 v4).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-4669 v4
Socket	LGA1700	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+67%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200+25%	DDR4-2400
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	1536 GB+700%
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	40+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-13400F) vs Yes (Xeon E5-4669 v4). Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon E5-4669 v4
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	Yes
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the Xeon E5-4669 v4 debuted at $7007. On MSRP ($196 vs $7007), the Core i5-13400F is $6811 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 2.5 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-4669 v4 — making the Core i5-13400F the 192.3% better value option.