i5-13400F vs Xeon E5-4650 v4

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-4650 v4
2016
14 cores / 28 threads, 105 Watt
10.00
Core i5-13400F
2023
10 cores / 16 threads, 65 Watt
15.84
+58.4%

Core i5-13400F outperforms Xeon E5-4650 v4 by an impressive 58% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-4650 v4 and Core i5-13400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking769420
Place by popularitynot in top-10043
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.0755.20
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Xeon E5no data
Power efficiency9.0123.06
Architecture codenameBroadwell (2015−2019)Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)
Release date20 June 2016 (8 years ago)4 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,838$196

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i5-13400F has 5059% better value for money than Xeon E5-4650 v4.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-4650 v4 and Core i5-13400F 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 cores14 (Tetradeca-Core)10 (Deca-Core)
Threads2816
Base clock speed2.2 GHz2.5 GHz
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz4.6 GHz
Bus typeQPIno data
Bus rate2 × 9.6 GT/sno data
Multiplier22no data
L1 cacheno data80K (per core)
L2 cache3.5 MB1.25 MB (per core)
L3 cache35 MB20 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size306.18 mm2257 mm2
Maximum core temperature80 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data72 °C
Number of transistors4700 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-4650 v4 and Core i5-13400F 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 configuration4 (Multiprocessor)1
SocketFCLGA2011FCLGA1700
Power consumption (TDP)105 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-4650 v4 and Core i5-13400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX2Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology2.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
TSX++
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Flex Memory Access-no data
PAE46 Bitno data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Xeon E5-4650 v4 and Core i5-13400F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++
Secure Key++
OS Guard++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-4650 v4 and Core i5-13400F are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-4650 v4 and Core i5-13400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR5, DDR4
Maximum memory size1.5 TB192 GB
Max memory channels42
Maximum memory bandwidth68 GB/s76.8 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-4650 v4 and Core i5-13400F.

PCIe version3.05.0 and 4.0
PCI Express lanes4016

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 E5-4650 v4 10.00
i5-13400F 15.84
+58.4%

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 E5-4650 v4 15883
i5-13400F 25166
+58.4%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.00 15.84
Recency 20 June 2016 4 January 2023
Physical cores 14 10
Threads 28 16
Power consumption (TDP) 105 Watt 65 Watt

Xeon E5-4650 v4 has 40% more physical cores and 75% more threads.

i5-13400F, on the other hand, has a 58.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and 61.5% lower power consumption.

The Core i5-13400F is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-4650 v4 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon E5-4650 v4 is a server/workstation processor while Core i5-13400F is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-4650 v4 and Core i5-13400F, 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 E5-4650 v4
Xeon E5-4650 v4
Intel Core i5-13400F
Core i5-13400F

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.


4.7 14 votes

Rate Xeon E5-4650 v4 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 3171 vote

Rate Core i5-13400F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-4650 v4 or Core i5-13400F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.