Core i5-10400F vs Xeon E5-2680
Aggregate performance score
Core i5-10400F outperforms Xeon E5-2680 by a substantial 38% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2680 and Core i5-10400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1012 | 840 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 12 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.31 | 48.09 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | Xeon (Desktop) | no data |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) | Comet Lake (2020) |
| Release date | 6 March 2012 (12 years ago) | 30 April 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,723 | $155 |
| Current price | $61 (0x MSRP) | $100 (0.6x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
i5-10400F has 1982% better value for money than Xeon E5-2680.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2680 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 | 2.7 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 20 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 435 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 85 °C | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 72 °C |
| Number of transistors | 2,270 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2680 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 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA2011 | FCLGA1200 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2680 and Core i5-10400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | + |
| TSX | no data | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Flex Memory Access | - | no data |
| SIPP | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
| Status | Discontinued | Launched |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2680 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 E5-2680 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 E5-2680 and Core i5-10400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 384 GB | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 41.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2680 and Core i5-10400F.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | 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 E5-2680 by 38% based on our aggregated 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 E5-2680 by 39% 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 E5-2680 by 165% 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 E5-2680 by 72% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
Core i5-10400F outperforms Xeon E5-2680 by 63% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Core i5-10400F outperforms Xeon E5-2680 by 36% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Benchmark coverage: 18%
Core i5-10400F outperforms Xeon E5-2680 by 28% in wPrime 32.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Core i5-10400F outperforms Xeon E5-2680 by 20% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Core i5-10400F outperforms Xeon E5-2680 by 61% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.08 | 8.42 |
| Recency | 6 March 2012 | 30 April 2020 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 6 |
| Threads | 16 | 12 |
| Cost | $1723 | $155 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 65 Watt |
The Core i5-10400F is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2680 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2680 is a server/workstation processor while Core i5-10400F is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2680 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.
