Core i5-10400F vs Xeon W3520
Aggregate performance score
i5-10400F outperforms Xeon W3520 by a whopping 343% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon W3520 and Core i5-10400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1896 | 852 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 12 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.11 | 37.63 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Bloomfield (2008−2010) | Comet Lake (2020) |
| Release date | March 2009 (15 years ago) | 20 May 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $404 | $155 |
| Current price | $70 (0.2x MSRP) | $109 (0.7x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
i5-10400F has 1110% better value for money than Xeon W3520.
Detailed specifications
Xeon W3520 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.67 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 384 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1.5 MB |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 12 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 263 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 68 °C | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 72 °C |
| Number of transistors | 731 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon W3520 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | 1366 | LGA1200 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon W3520 and Core i5-10400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| TSX | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon W3520 and Core i5-10400F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon W3520 and Core i5-10400F are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon W3520 and Core i5-10400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 41.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon W3520 and Core i5-10400F.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 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.
Core i5-10400F outperforms Xeon W3520 by 343% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Core i5-10400F outperforms Xeon W3520 by 344% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Core i5-10400F outperforms Xeon W3520 by 246% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Core i5-10400F outperforms Xeon W3520 by 300% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.90 | 8.42 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 6 |
| Threads | 8 | 12 |
| Cost | $404 | $155 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 65 Watt |
i5-10400F has a 343.2% higher aggregate performance score, 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads, its recommended price lower by $249, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
The Core i5-10400F is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon W3520 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon W3520 is a server/workstation processor while Core i5-10400F is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon W3520 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.
