Ryzen 5 8400F vs Xeon W-3265

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon W-3265
2019
24 cores / 48 threads, 205 Watt
19.67
+27.4%

Xeon W-3265 outperforms Ryzen 5 8400F by a significant 27% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon W-3265 and Ryzen 5 8400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking302467
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.5661.38
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Xeon Wno data
Power efficiency8.7521.66
Architecture codenameCascade Lake (2019−2020)Phoenix (2023−2024)
Release date3 June 2019 (5 years ago)1 April 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,349$170

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 5 8400F has 542% better value for money than Xeon W-3265.

Detailed specifications

Xeon W-3265 and Ryzen 5 8400F 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 cores24 (Tetracosa-Core)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads4812
Base clock speed2.7 GHz4.2 GHz
Boost clock speed4.6 GHz4.7 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier27no data
L1 cache1.5 MB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache24 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache33 MB16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm4 nm
Die sizeno data178 mm2
Maximum core temperature78 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data25,000 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon W-3265 and Ryzen 5 8400F 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketFCLGA3647AM5
Power consumption (TDP)205 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon W-3265 and Ryzen 5 8400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX-512no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0+no data
Precision Boost 2no data+
Deep Learning Boost+-

Security technologies

Xeon W-3265 and Ryzen 5 8400F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon W-3265 and Ryzen 5 8400F are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon W-3265 and Ryzen 5 8400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2933DDR5
Maximum memory size1 TBno data
Max memory channels6no data
Maximum memory bandwidth140.8 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon W-3265 and Ryzen 5 8400F.

PCIe version3.04.0
PCI Express lanes6420

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.

Xeon W-3265 19.67
+27.4%
Ryzen 5 8400F 15.44

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.

Xeon W-3265 30105
+27.4%
Ryzen 5 8400F 23635

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.67 15.44
Recency 3 June 2019 1 April 2024
Physical cores 24 6
Threads 48 12
Chip lithography 14 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 205 Watt 65 Watt

Xeon W-3265 has a 27.4% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.

Ryzen 5 8400F, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 215.4% lower power consumption.

The Xeon W-3265 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 8400F in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon W-3265 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 5 8400F is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon W-3265 and Ryzen 5 8400F, 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 Xeon W-3265
Xeon W-3265
AMD Ryzen 5 8400F
Ryzen 5 8400F

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 11 votes

Rate Xeon W-3265 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 146 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 8400F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon W-3265 or Ryzen 5 8400F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.