Xeon Gold 6240 vs i5-9400F

Aggregate performance score

Core i5-9400F
2019
6 cores / 6 threads, 65 Watt
5.96
Xeon Gold 6240
2019
18 cores / 36 threads, 150 Watt
16.37
+175%

Xeon Gold 6240 outperforms Core i5-9400F by a whopping 175% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i5-9400F and Xeon Gold 6240 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1096397
Place by popularity25not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.1910.00
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesIntel Core i5Intel Xeon Gold
Power efficiency8.6810.33
Architecture codenameCoffee Lake-R (2018−2019)Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
Release date8 January 2019 (5 years ago)2 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$182$2,445

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon Gold 6240 has 9% better value for money than i5-9400F.

Detailed specifications

Core i5-9400F and Xeon Gold 6240 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)18 (Octadeca-Core)
Threads636
Base clock speed2.9 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed4.1 GHz3.9 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0DMI 3.0
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/s4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplier2926
L1 cache64K (per core)1.125 MB
L2 cache256K (per core)18 MB
L3 cache9 MB (shared)24.75 MB
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Die size149 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature100 °C85 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++

Compatibility

Information on Core i5-9400F and Xeon Gold 6240 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)4 (Multiprocessor)
SocketFCLGA1151FCLGA3647
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt150 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-9400F and Xeon Gold 6240. 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 3.0no data-
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Core i5-9400F and Xeon Gold 6240 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

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

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-9400F and Xeon Gold 6240 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-9400F and Xeon Gold 6240. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2666DDR4-2933
Maximum memory size128 GB1 TB
Max memory channels26
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/s140.8 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-9400F and Xeon Gold 6240.

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.

i5-9400F 5.96
Xeon Gold 6240 16.37
+175%

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.

i5-9400F 9470
Xeon Gold 6240 26000
+175%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.96 16.37
Recency 8 January 2019 2 April 2019
Physical cores 6 18
Threads 6 36
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 150 Watt

i5-9400F has 130.8% lower power consumption.

Xeon Gold 6240, on the other hand, has a 174.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 months, and 200% more physical cores and 500% more threads.

The Xeon Gold 6240 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-9400F in performance tests.

Note that Core i5-9400F is a desktop processor while Xeon Gold 6240 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-9400F and Xeon Gold 6240, 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 i5-9400F
Core i5-9400F
Intel Xeon Gold 6240
Xeon Gold 6240

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.


4.9 56651 vote

Rate Core i5-9400F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 10 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i5-9400F or Xeon Gold 6240, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.