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

✅Costs $4,253 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1305.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 9.1 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 205W, a 140W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-3275M.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3275M across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 40,419).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 39 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3275M, which brings 28 cores / 56 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Xeon W-3275M

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +39.1% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+92.5% larger total L3 cache (39 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 28 cores / 56 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅220% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.1 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($4,449 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌215.4% higher power demand at 205W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Core i5-13400F

2023

Xeon W-3275M

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $4,253 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1305.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 127.7 vs 9.1 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 205W, a 140W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-3275M.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +39.1% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+92.5% larger total L3 cache (39 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 28 cores / 56 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅220% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3275M across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (25,029 vs 40,419).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 39 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3275M, which brings 28 cores / 56 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.1 vs 127.7 PassMark/$ ($4,449 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).
❌215.4% higher power demand at 205W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Core i5-13400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-13400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W-3275M better than Core i5-13400F?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-3275M 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, Xeon W-3275M is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 39.1% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon W-3275M is the better fit. You are getting 61.5% better PassMark, backed by 28 cores and 56 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 92.5% larger total L3 cache (39 MB vs 20 MB).

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

Xeon W-3275M is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-13400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon W-3275M is 2169.9% more expensive on MSRP at $4,449 MSRP versus $196 MSRP, and it gives you a 39.1% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-13400F is also 1305.6% better value on MSRP (127.7 vs 9.1 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Core i5-13400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2019) and a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of LGA3647. 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 W-3275M Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon W-3275M
1080p
low	171 FPS	198 FPS
medium	158 FPS	162 FPS
high	132 FPS	132 FPS
ultra	112 FPS	106 FPS
1440p
low	143 FPS	159 FPS
medium	123 FPS	125 FPS
high	99 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	84 FPS	83 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	87 FPS
medium	74 FPS	74 FPS
high	59 FPS	58 FPS
ultra	46 FPS	47 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon W-3275M

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon W-3275M
1080p
low	545 FPS	607 FPS
medium	464 FPS	522 FPS
high	389 FPS	420 FPS
ultra	356 FPS	371 FPS
1440p
low	458 FPS	514 FPS
medium	403 FPS	447 FPS
high	345 FPS	370 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	306 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	306 FPS
medium	247 FPS	266 FPS
high	231 FPS	243 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	213 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon W-3275M

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon W-3275M
1080p
low	530 FPS	1010 FPS
medium	449 FPS	928 FPS
high	415 FPS	876 FPS
ultra	375 FPS	793 FPS
1440p
low	490 FPS	808 FPS
medium	422 FPS	715 FPS
high	382 FPS	675 FPS
ultra	343 FPS	605 FPS
4K
low	393 FPS	519 FPS
medium	331 FPS	429 FPS
high	296 FPS	387 FPS
ultra	246 FPS	315 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon W-3275M

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-13400F	Xeon W-3275M
1080p
low	626 FPS	1010 FPS
medium	626 FPS	1010 FPS
high	626 FPS	885 FPS
ultra	626 FPS	773 FPS
1440p
low	626 FPS	932 FPS
medium	626 FPS	804 FPS
high	598 FPS	702 FPS
ultra	521 FPS	603 FPS
4K
low	535 FPS	680 FPS
medium	492 FPS	591 FPS
high	439 FPS	521 FPS
ultra	382 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i5-13400F Open Xeon W-3275M

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-13400F and Xeon W-3275M

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 W-3275M

The Xeon W-3275M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 June 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Cascade Lake (2019−2020) architecture. It features 28 cores and 56 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.6 GHz. L3 cache: 38.5 MB. L2 cache: 28 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 205 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 40,419 points. Launch price was $7,453.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-13400F packs 10 cores / 16 threads, while the Xeon W-3275M offers 28 cores / 56 threads — the Xeon W-3275M has 18 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.6 GHz on the Core i5-13400F versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3275M — identical boost frequencies (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core i5-13400F uses the Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Xeon W-3275M uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-13400F scores 25,029 against the Xeon W-3275M's 40,419 — a 47% lead for the Xeon W-3275M. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core i5-13400F vs 38.5 MB on the Xeon W-3275M.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon W-3275M
Cores / Threads	10 / 16	28 / 56+180%
Boost Clock	4.6 GHz	4.6 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	2.5 GHz
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	38.5 MB+93%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)	28 MB+2140%
Process	Intel 7 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	25,029	40,419+61%
Cinebench R23 Multi	16,211	—
Geekbench 6 Single	2,407	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	11,408	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-13400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon W-3275M uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-13400F versus 2933 on the Xeon W-3275M — the Xeon W-3275M supports 199.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon W-3275M supports up to 2048 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 165.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-13400F) vs 6 (Xeon W-3275M). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-13400F) vs 64 (Xeon W-3275M) — the Xeon W-3275M offers 44 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-13400F) and C620 (Xeon W-3275M).

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon W-3275M
Socket	LGA1700	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+67%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	2933+58560%
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+9830300%	2048
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	64+220%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon W-3275M supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Primary use case: Core i5-13400F targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Core i5-13400F rivals Ryzen 5 7600; Xeon W-3275M rivals EPYC 7742.

Feature	Core i5-13400F	Xeon W-3275M
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-13400F launched at $196 MSRP, while the Xeon W-3275M debuted at $4449. On MSRP ($196 vs $4449), the Core i5-13400F is $4253 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-13400F delivers 127.7 pts/$ vs 9.1 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3275M — making the Core i5-13400F the 173.4% better value option.