Intel Core i5-13400T vs Intel Xeon W-2155 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-13400T and the Intel Xeon W-2155 occupy very different positions in Intel’s lineup, yet benchmark results place them surprisingly close in raw compute throughput. The Xeon W-2155 wins every recorded head-to-head Cinebench test, but the margins are narrow, ranging from 2.8% to 2.9%. The i5-13400T, however, counters with a much newer architecture, a far lower power envelope, and a substantial advantage in platform features like PCIe generation and integrated graphics. The data shows a classic trade-off: the workstation Xeon holds a slight edge in multi-threaded and single-threaded rendering scores, while the desktop part delivers nearly equivalent performance at a fraction of the thermal and platform cost.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon W-2155 wins all six recorded benchmark comparisons, but none by a wide margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 1767 against the i5-13400T’s 1716, a difference of 2.9%. Single-core R15 shows a similar pattern: 249 for the Xeon versus 242 for the i5, a 2.8% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon posts 7365 multi-core and 1039 single-core, while the i5-13400T records 7152 and 1009, respectively. Both deltas sit at 2.9%. The trend continues in Cinebench R23, where the Xeon’s 17538 multi-core and 2475 single-core scores top the i5-13400T’s 17029 and 2404, again by 2.9%.

The consistency of these margins is notable. Across three Cinebench generations, the Xeon’s advantage never widens beyond 2.9% or narrows below 2.8%. This suggests a stable performance relationship, likely tied to the Xeon’s higher base and boost clocks. The Xeon W-2155 runs at a 3.30 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost, while the i5-13400T operates at 1.30 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost. The boost clocks are nearly identical, which explains why single-core scores are so close. The base clock difference is large, but in sustained all-core workloads, the Xeon’s 20 threads versus the i5’s 16 threads help it maintain a slight lead.

An important caveat: the i5-13400T also has Geekbench scores in the database, with 10227 multi-core and 1899 single-core, while the Xeon W-2155 lacks Geekbench entries. This means the head-to-head comparison only covers Cinebench, and the overall average benchmark scores reflect different test sets. The i5-13400T has an average benchmark score of 5210, placing it in the 60th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E-2378G at 5199 (0.2% difference), the Intel Core i9-10850K at 5240 (-0.6%), the Intel Core i7-11700B at 5241 (-0.6%), and the Intel Core i5-14401E at 5253 (-0.8%). The Xeon W-2155, with an average score of 5072, also sits in the 60th percentile, with nearest rivals being the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5750GE at 5070 (0% difference), the Intel Core i9-12900TE at 5050 (0.4%), the Intel Core i7-11850HE at 5095 (-0.4%), and the Intel Core i9-9820X at 5049 (0.4%).

The average score gap between the two parts is 138 points in favor of the i5-13400T (5210 versus 5072), but this is misleading because the i5 includes Geekbench results, which tend to favor newer architectures, while the Xeon only has Cinebench results. In the strict Cinebench head-to-head, the Xeon wins every round. The data indicates that for pure rendering workloads, the Xeon W-2155 is marginally faster, but the difference is within what many users would consider negligible.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors spans five years and two process nodes. The i5-13400T uses Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-S die, built on Intel’s 10 nm process. The Xeon W-2155 uses Skylake-W, built on Intel’s 14 nm process. This node difference is significant: the 10 nm part packs a die size of 215 mm², while the 14 nm Xeon has a much larger 484 mm² die. Despite the larger die, the Xeon manages only 10 cores and 20 threads, while the i5-13400T also has 10 cores but 16 threads, meaning the i5 uses a hybrid design of performance and efficiency cores, whereas the Xeon uses 10 monolithic Skylake cores with Hyper-Threading.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The i5-13400T offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Xeon W-2155 provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 13.75 MB of shared L3. The i5’s larger L3 cache, 20 MB versus 13.75 MB, likely helps in workloads with large working sets, but the recorded benchmarks show only a minimal impact. The i5’s per-core L2 is also larger, but again, the Cinebench results do not reflect a meaningful advantage.

Memory support is a major differentiator. The i5-13400T supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, with no ECC support. The Xeon W-2155 supports DDR4 only, but in a quad-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s and full ECC support. For memory-intensive server or workstation tasks, the Xeon’s quad-channel memory and ECC are clear advantages, but these do not show up in Cinebench scores, which are primarily compute-bound.

PCIe capabilities also diverge. The i5-13400T offers PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon W-2155 offers PCIe Gen 3 with 48 lanes (CPU only). The Xeon’s 48 lanes are suited for multiple GPUs, high-speed storage controllers, and other workstation peripherals. The i5’s Gen 5 bandwidth, however, is double that of Gen 4 and four times Gen 3 per lane, so fewer lanes can carry more data. For a single high-end GPU, the i5’s Gen 5 support is future-proof, but for multi-card configurations, the Xeon’s lane count wins.

Integrated graphics: the i5-13400T includes Intel UHD Graphics 730, while the Xeon W-2155 has no integrated graphics. This is a practical difference. The i5 can run a headless system or basic display output without a discrete GPU, while the Xeon requires a dedicated graphics card for any video output.

Power and platform: the i5-13400T has a TDP of 35 watts, while the Xeon W-2155 draws 140 watts. This is a fourfold difference. The i5 is a low-power desktop part, designed for efficient systems, whereas the Xeon is a high-power workstation chip. The socket also differs: the i5 uses Intel Socket 1700, the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2066. These are not interchangeable platforms.

Production status: the i5-13400T is active, while the Xeon W-2155 is end-of-life. Release dates reinforce this: the i5 launched on 2023-01-03, the Xeon on 2017-08-28. The Xeon is a product of the Skylake era, now discontinued, while the i5 is a current-generation mainstream part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Xeon W-2155 scores 17538, while the Intel Core i5-13400T scores 17029. The Xeon leads by 2.9%.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-13400T have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Intel UHD Graphics 730. The Intel Xeon W-2155 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: What are the memory support differences?

A: The i5-13400T supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode with no ECC. The Xeon W-2155 supports DDR4 only, but in quad-channel mode with a memory bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s and ECC support.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: Both have 10 cores. The i5-13400T has 16 threads, while the Xeon W-2155 has 20 threads due to Hyper-Threading on all cores.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Xeon W-2155 boosts to 4.50 GHz, while the i5-13400T boosts to 4.40 GHz. The Xeon is 0.10 GHz higher.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The i5-13400T has a TDP of 35 watts, while the Xeon W-2155 has a TDP of 140 watts.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two parts:

• Threads: i5-13400T has 16, Xeon W-2155 has 20.
• Base clock: i5-13400T at 1300.00 MHz, Xeon W-2155 at 3300.00 MHz.
• Boost clock: i5-13400T at 4.40 GHz, Xeon W-2155 at 4.50 GHz.
• TDP: 35 watts versus 140 watts.
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel Socket 2066.
• Architecture: Raptor Lake versus Skylake.
• Codename: Raptor Lake-S versus Skylake-W.
• Generation: Core i5 (Raptor Lake) versus Xeon W (Skylake-W).
• Process node: 10 nm versus 14 nm.
• Die size: 215 mm² versus 484 mm².
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core versus 64 KB per core.
• L2 cache: 1.25 MB per core versus 1 MB per core.
• L3 cache: 20 MB shared versus 13.75 MB shared.
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 versus DDR4 only.
• Memory bus: Dual-channel versus Quad-channel.
• Memory bandwidth: not listed for i5, 85.3 GB/s for Xeon.
• ECC memory: false versus true.
• PCIe: Gen 5, 20 lanes versus Gen 3, 48 lanes.
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 versus none.
• Market segment: Desktop versus Server/Workstation.
• Production status: Active versus End-of-life.
• Release date: 2023-01-03 versus 2017-08-28.
• Launch MSRP: $221 versus $1440.
• Part number: SRMBR versus SR3LR.
• Benchmark scores: i5 has Geekbench scores, Xeon does not; Xeon wins all Cinebench head-to-head tests.
• Average benchmark score: 5210 versus 5072.
• Nearest rivals: different sets of processors with different average scores and deltas.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is clear: the Intel Xeon W-2155 wins every Cinebench test, but by a margin that never exceeds 2.9%. For users who prioritize raw Cinebench rendering performance, the Xeon is the faster chip. However, the i5-13400T is not far behind, trailing by less than 3% in all tests while consuming 105 fewer watts (35 TDP versus 140 TDP). The i5 also has a newer architecture, a smaller die, larger caches, integrated graphics, and PCIe Gen 5 support. The Xeon counters with more threads, a higher base clock, quad-channel memory with ECC, and triple the PCIe lanes (48 versus 20).

The Xeon W-2155 is end-of-life, while the i5-13400T is active and current. The launch MSRP difference is substantial: $221 for the i5 versus $1440 for the Xeon. But the database records no price-performance analysis, only the numbers above. The Xeon’s higher price buys workstation-specific features: ECC memory, quad-channel bandwidth, and 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. The i5’s lower price and TDP make it a more flexible desktop part, but it lacks ECC and offers fewer lanes.

For most desktop users, the i5-13400T is the pragmatic choice. It delivers 97.1% of the Xeon’s multi-core Cinebench R23 score (17029 versus 17538) at 25% of the TDP. It also includes integrated graphics, which the Xeon lacks entirely. The Xeon’s advantages, while real, only matter in specific server or workstation scenarios.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core i5-13400T wins on:

• Efficiency: 35 watts TDP versus 140 watts, a fourfold reduction.
• Modern architecture: Raptor Lake on 10 nm versus Skylake on 14 nm.
• Cache capacity: 20 MB L3 versus 13.75 MB L3, and larger per-core L1 and L2.
• Memory flexibility: supports DDR4 and DDR5, though dual-channel only.
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 present, Xeon has none.
• PCIe generation: Gen 5 versus Gen 3, doubling per-lane bandwidth.
• Production status: active versus end-of-life.
• Lower launch MSRP: $221 versus $1440.
• Geekbench scores: 10227 multi-core and 1899 single-core, which the Xeon does not have in the database.
• Average benchmark score: 5210 versus 5072, though this includes different test suites.

Intel Xeon W-2155 wins on:

• All six Cinebench head-to-head tests: R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core, with deltas of 2.8% to 2.9%.
• Thread count: 20 threads versus 16.
• Base clock: 3300 MHz versus 1300 MHz.
• Boost clock: 4500 MHz versus 4400 MHz.
• Memory bandwidth: 85.3 GB/s via quad-channel DDR4.
• ECC memory support: true versus false.
• PCIe lane count: 48 lanes versus 20.
• Market segment: server/workstation designation, with the associated reliability and validation expectations.
• Larger die size: 484 mm² versus 215 mm², though this is not a performance advantage.

The data shows a split decision. For Cinebench rendering, the Xeon W-2155 is the winner, but only by a hair. For every other measurable metric, the i5-13400T offers a more modern, efficient, and feature-rich platform. The Xeon’s niche is clear: workstations requiring ECC memory, high memory bandwidth, and many PCIe lanes. The i5’s niche is broader: mainstream desktops, low-power builds, and systems where integrated graphics and PCIe Gen 5 matter more than a 2.9% Cinebench lead.