Xeon Gold 6240R vs i5-10400F

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i5-10400F
2020
6 cores / 12 threads, 65 Watt
8.20
Xeon Gold 6240R
2020
24 cores / 48 threads, 165 Watt
21.00
+156%

Xeon Gold 6240R outperforms Core i5-10400F by a whopping 156% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i5-10400F and Xeon Gold 6240R processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking926264
Place by popularity9not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation23.9018.79
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Seriesno dataIntel Xeon Gold
Power efficiency11.9412.04
Architecture codenameComet Lake (2020)Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
Release date30 April 2020 (4 years ago)24 February 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$155$2,200

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i5-10400F has 27% better value for money than Xeon Gold 6240R.

Detailed specifications

Core i5-10400F and Xeon Gold 6240R basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores6 (Hexa-Core)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads1248
Base clock speed2.9 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed4.3 GHz4 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 3.0
Bus rate8 GT/s4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplierno data24
L1 cache64K (per core)1.5 MB
L2 cache256K (per core)24 MB
L3 cache12 MB (shared)35.75 MB
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Maximum core temperature100 °C90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++

Compatibility

Information on Core i5-10400F and Xeon Gold 6240R compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration1no data
SocketFCLGA1200FCLGA3647
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt165 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-10400F and Xeon Gold 6240R. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology2.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
TSX-+
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0--
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Core i5-10400F and Xeon Gold 6240R technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++
Secure Key+no data
Identity Protection+-
SGXYes with Intel® MEno data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-10400F and Xeon Gold 6240R are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-10400F and Xeon Gold 6240R. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR4-2933
Maximum memory size128 GB1 TB
Max memory channels26
Maximum memory bandwidth41.6 GB/s140.8 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-10400F and Xeon Gold 6240R.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes1648

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

i5-10400F 8.20
Xeon Gold 6240R 21.00
+156%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

i5-10400F 13029
Xeon Gold 6240R 33353
+156%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.20 21.00
Recency 30 April 2020 24 February 2020
Physical cores 6 24
Threads 12 48
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 165 Watt

i5-10400F has an age advantage of 2 months, and 153.8% lower power consumption.

Xeon Gold 6240R, on the other hand, has a 156.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.

The Xeon Gold 6240R is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-10400F in performance tests.

Note that Core i5-10400F is a desktop processor while Xeon Gold 6240R is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-10400F and Xeon Gold 6240R, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core i5-10400F
Core i5-10400F
Intel Xeon Gold 6240R
Xeon Gold 6240R

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 13796 votes

Rate Core i5-10400F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 11 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6240R on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i5-10400F or Xeon Gold 6240R, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.