i5-10400F vs Xeon Silver 4215
Aggregate performance score
Xeon Silver 4215 outperforms Core i5-10400F by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon Silver 4215 and Core i5-10400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 837 | 915 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 12 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 13.54 | 23.01 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Xeon Silver | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.12 | 11.95 |
| Architecture codename | Cascade Lake (2019−2020) | Comet Lake (2020) |
| Release date | 2 April 2019 (5 years ago) | 30 April 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $794 | $155 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
i5-10400F has 70% better value for money than Xeon Silver 4215.
Detailed specifications
Xeon Silver 4215 and Core i5-10400F 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 cores | 8 (Octa-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 25 | no data |
| L1 cache | 512 KB | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 11 MB | 12 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 77 °C | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 72 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon Silver 4215 and Core i5-10400F 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 configuration | 2 (Multiprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA3647 | FCLGA1200 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Silver 4215 and Core i5-10400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | + |
| TSX | + | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | - | - |
| Deep Learning Boost | + | - |
Security technologies
Xeon Silver 4215 and Core i5-10400F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Silver 4215 and Core i5-10400F are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Silver 4215 and Core i5-10400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2400 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 1 TB | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | 6 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 115.212 GB/s | 41.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Silver 4215 and Core i5-10400F.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 48 | 16 |
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.26 | 8.36 |
| Recency | 2 April 2019 | 30 April 2020 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 6 |
| Threads | 16 | 12 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 65 Watt |
Xeon Silver 4215 has a 10.8% higher aggregate performance score, and 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads.
i5-10400F, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 30.8% lower power consumption.
The Xeon Silver 4215 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-10400F in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon Silver 4215 is a server/workstation processor while Core i5-10400F is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Silver 4215 and Core i5-10400F, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
