Intel Core i5-8400 vs. AMD Ryzen 5 1600 AF
Intel Core i5-8400
The Intel Core i5-8400 operates with 6 cores and 6 CPU threads. It run at 4.00 GHz base 3.80 GHz all cores while the TDP is set at 65 W.The processor is attached to the LGA 1151-2 CPU socket. This version includes 9.00 MB of L3 cache on one chip, supports 2 memory channels to support DDR4-2666 RAM and features 3.0 PCIe Gen 16 lanes. Tjunction keeps below — degrees C. In particular, Coffee Lake S Architecture is enhanced with 14 nm technology and supports VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d. The product was launched on Q4/2017
AMD Ryzen 5 1600 AF
The AMD Ryzen 5 1600 AF operates with 6 cores and 6 CPU threads. It run at 3.60 GHz base 3.40 GHz all cores while the TDP is set at 65 W.The processor is attached to the AM4 CPU socket. This version includes 16.00 MB of L3 cache on one chip, supports 2 memory channels to support DDR4-2666 RAM and features 3.0 PCIe Gen 20 lanes. Tjunction keeps below 95 °C degrees C. In particular, Pinnacle Ridge (Zen+) Architecture is enhanced with 12 nm technology and supports AMD-V, SVM. The product was launched on Q4/2019
Intel Core i5-8400
AMD Ryzen 5 1600 AF
Compare Detail
2.80 GHz | Frequency | 3.20 GHz |
6 | Cores | 6 |
4.00 GHz | Turbo (1 Core) | 3.60 GHz |
3.80 GHz | Turbo (All Cores) | 3.40 GHz |
No | Hyperthreading | Yes |
No | Overclocking | Yes |
normal | Core Architecture | normal |
Intel UHD Graphics 630 |
GPU | no iGPU |
1.15 GHz | GPU (Turbo) | No turbo |
14 nm | Technology | 12 nm |
1.15 GHz | GPU (Turbo) | No turbo |
12 | DirectX Version | |
3 | Max. displays | |
DDR4-2666 | Memory | DDR4-2666 |
2 | Memory channels | 2 |
Max memory | ||
No | ECC | Yes |
— | L2 Cache | — |
9. 00 MB | L3 Cache | 16.00 MB |
3.0 | PCIe version | 3.0 |
16 | PCIe lanes | 20 |
14 nm | Technology | 12 nm |
LGA 1151-2 | Socket | AM4 |
65 W | TDP | 65 W |
VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d | Virtualization | AMD-V, SVM |
Q4/2017 | Release date | Q4/2019 |
Show more data |
Show more data |
Cinebench R23 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R23 is the successor of Cinebench R20 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Cinebench R23 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R23 is the successor of Cinebench R20 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Cinebench R20 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R20 is the successor of Cinebench R15 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Cinebench R20 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R20 is the successor of Cinebench R15 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor of Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor of Cinebench 11. 5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
iGPU — FP32 Performance (Single-precision GFLOPS)
The theoretical computing performance of the internal graphics unit of the processor with simple accuracy (32 bit) in GFLOPS. GFLOPS indicates how many billion floating point operations the iGPU can perform per second.
Blender 2.81 (bmw27)
Blender is a free 3D graphics software for rendering (creating) 3D bodies, which can also be textured and animated in the software. The Blender benchmark creates predefined scenes and measures the time (s) required for the entire scene. The shorter the time required, the better. We selected bmw27 as the benchmark scene.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (iGPU, OpenGL)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D. The iGPU test uses the CPU internal graphic unit to execute OpenGL commands.
Estimated results for PassMark CPU Mark
Some of the CPUs listed below have been benchmarked by CPU-Comparison. However the majority of CPUs have not been tested and the results have been estimated by a CPU-Comparison’s secret proprietary formula. As such they do not accurately reflect the actual Passmark CPU mark values and are not endorsed by PassMark Software Pty Ltd.
Electric Usage Estimate
Average hours of use per day
Average CPU Utilization (0-100%)
Power cost, dollar per kWh
Electric Usage Estimate
Average hours of use per day
Average CPU Utilization (0-100%)
Power cost, dollar per kWh
Intel Core i5-8400 | AMD Ryzen 5 1600 AF | |
65 W | Max TDP | 65 W |
NA | Power consumption per day (kWh) | NA |
NA | Running cost per day | NA |
NA | Power consumption per year (kWh) | NA |
NA | Running cost per year | NA |
Popular Comparision
Comments
Intel Core i5-8400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
|
|
|
Intel Core i5-8400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
Comparison of the technical characteristics between the processors, with the Intel Core i5-8400 on one side and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X on the other side. The first is dedicated to the desktop sector, It has 6 cores, 6 threads, a maximum frequency of 4,0GHz. The second is used on the desktop segment, it has a total of 6 cores, 12 threads, its turbo frequency is set to 4,6 GHz. The following table also compares the lithography, the number of transistors (if indicated), the amount of cache memory, the maximum RAM memory capacity, the type of memory accepted, the release date, the maximum number of PCIe lanes, the values obtained in Geekbench 4 and Cinebench R15.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.
Specifications:
Processor | Intel Core i5-8400 | AMD Ryzen 5 5600X | ||||||
Market (main) | Desktop | Desktop | ||||||
ISA | x86-64 (64 bit) | x86-64 (64 bit) | ||||||
Microarchitecture | Coffee Lake | Zen 3 | ||||||
Core name | Coffee Lake-S | Vermeer | ||||||
Family | Core i5-8000 | Ryzen 5 5000 | ||||||
Part number(s), S-Spec | BX80684I58400, BXC80684I58400, CM8068403358811, BOC80684I58400, BO80684I58400, SR3QT, QNMN |
100-000000065, 100-100000065BOX, 100-100000065MPK |
||||||
Release date | Q4 2017 | Q4 2020 | ||||||
Lithography | 14 nm++ | 7 nm FinFET | ||||||
Cores | 6 | 6 | ||||||
Threads | 6 | 12 | ||||||
Base frequency | 2,8 GHz | 3,7 GHz | ||||||
Turbo frequency | 4,0 GHz | 4,6 GHz | ||||||
Cache memory | 9 MB | 32 MB | ||||||
Max memory capacity | 64 GB | 128 GB | ||||||
Memory types | DDR4-2666 | DDR4-3200 | ||||||
Max # of memory channels | 2 | 2 | ||||||
Max memory bandwidth | 41,6 GB/s | 47,68 GB/s | ||||||
Max PCIe lanes | 16 | 24 | ||||||
TDP | 65 W | 65 W | ||||||
Suggested PSU | 600W ATX Power Supply | 600W ATX Power Supply | ||||||
GPU integrated graphics | Intel UHD Graphics 630 (Coffee Lake) | None | ||||||
GPU execution units | 23 | — | ||||||
GPU shading units | 184 | — | ||||||
GPU base clock | 350 MHz | — | ||||||
GPU boost clock | 1050 MHz | — | ||||||
GPU FP32 floating point | 423,2 GFLOPS | — | ||||||
Socket | LGA1151 | AM4 | ||||||
Compatible motherboard | Socket LGA 1151 Motherboard | Socket AM4 Motherboard | ||||||
Maximum temperature | 100°C | 95°C | ||||||
CPU-Z single thread | 442 | 629 | ||||||
CPU-Z multi thread | 2. 666 | 4.871 | ||||||
Cinebench R15 single thread | 169 | 261 | ||||||
Cinebench R15 multi-thread | 954 | 1.971 | ||||||
Cinebench R23 single thread | 1.017 | 1.531 | ||||||
Cinebench R23 multi-thread | 5.839 | 11.190 | ||||||
PassMark single thread | 2.401 | 3.378 | ||||||
PassMark CPU Mark | 9.206 | 22.192 | ||||||
(Windows 64-bit) Geekbench 4 single core |
4.765 | 6.975 | ||||||
(Windows 64-bit) Geekbench 4 multi-core |
18. 154 | 33.553 | ||||||
(SGEMM) GFLOPS performance |
299,4 GFLOPS | 408 GFLOPS | ||||||
(Multi-core / watt performance) Performance / watt ratio |
279 pts / W | 516 pts / W | ||||||
Amazon | ||||||||
eBay |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
We can better compare what are the technical differences between the two processors.
Suggested PSU: We assume that we have An ATX computer case, a high end graphics card, 16GB RAM, a 512GB SSD, a 1TB HDD hard drive, a Blu-Ray drive. We will have to rely on a more powerful power supply if we want to have several graphics cards, several monitors, more memory, etc.
Price: For technical reasons, we cannot currently display a price less than 24 hours, or a real-time price. This is why we prefer for the moment not to show a price. You should refer to the respective online stores for the latest price, as well as availability.
We see that the two processors have an equivalent number of cores, the turbo frequency of AMD Ryzen 5 5600X is bigger, that their respective TDP are of the same order. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X was started more recently.
Performances :
Performance comparison between the two processors, for this we consider the results generated on benchmark software such as Geekbench 4.
CPU-Z — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
---|---|
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X |
629 4.871 |
Intel Core i5-8400 |
442 2.666 |
In single core, the difference is 42%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 83%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
CPU-Z is a system information software that provides the name of the processor, its model number, the codename, the cache levels, the package, the process. It can also gives data about the mainboard, the memory. It makes real time measurement, with finally a benchmark for the single thread, as well as for the multi thread.
Cinebench R15 — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
---|---|
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X |
261 1.971 |
Intel Core i5-8400 |
169 954 |
In single core, the difference is 54%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 107%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Cinebench R15 evaluates the performance of CPU calculations by restoring a photorealistic 3D scene. The scene has 2,000 objects, 300,000 polygons, uses sharp and fuzzy reflections, bright areas, shadows, procedural shaders, antialiasing, and so on. The faster the rendering of the scene is created, the more powerful the PC is, with a high number of points.
Cinebench R23 — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
---|---|
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X |
1.531 11.190 |
Intel Core i5-8400 |
1.017 5.839 |
In single core, the difference is 51%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 92%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Cinebench R23 is cross-platform testing software that allows you to assess the hardware capabilities of a device such as a computer, tablet, server. This version of Cinebench takes into account recent developments in processors with multiple cores and the latest improvements in rendering techniques. The evaluation is ultimately even more relevant. The test scene contains no less than 2,000 objects and more than 300,000 polygons in total.
PassMark — CPU Mark & single thread | |
---|---|
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X |
3.378 22.192 |
Intel Core i5-8400 |
2.401 9.206 |
In single core, the difference is 41%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 141%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
PassMark is a benchmarking software that performs several performance tests including prime numbers, integers, floating point, compression, physics, extended instructions, encoding, sorting. The higher the score is, the higher is the device capacity.
On Windows 64-bit:
Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score — Windows 64-bit | |
---|---|
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X |
6.975 33.553 |
Intel Core i5-8400 |
4.765 18.154 |
In single core, the difference is 46%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 85%.
On Linux 64-bit:
Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score — Linux 64-bit | |
---|---|
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X |
6.975 38.157 |
Intel Core i5-8400 |
5.100 18.750 |
In single core, the difference is 37%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 104%.
On Mac OS X 64-bit:
Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score — Mac OS X 64-bit | |
---|---|
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X |
9.573 46.982 |
Intel Core i5-8400 |
5.098 20.285 |
In single core, the difference is 88%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 132%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Geekbench 4 is a complete benchmark platform with several types of tests, including data compression, images, AES encryption, SQL encoding, HTML, PDF file rendering, matrix computation, Fast Fourier Transform, 3D object simulation, photo editing, memory testing. This allows us to better visualize the respective power of these devices. For each result, we took an average of 250 values on the famous benchmark software.
Equivalence:
Intel Core i5-8400 AMD equivalentAMD Ryzen 5 5600X Intel equivalent
See also:
Intel Core i5-8400HIntel Core i5-8400T
AMD Ryzen 5 5600AMD Ryzen 5 5600GAMD Ryzen 5 5600GEAMD Ryzen 5 5600HAMD Ryzen 5 5600HSAMD Ryzen 5 5600U
Pre Marriage Counselling Sydney | Pre Marrital Counselling
About Relationship Counselling
Couple relationships predictably enter a phase of conflict or stress. In fact, relationship experts predict a conflict phase in most romantic long term relationships. Frequently the issues are sorted out and the relationship progresses or returns to its previous state. Often, however, when the issues can not be resolved, you may find that your relationship escalates into anger and resentment, avoidance of the core issues, sadness, emptiness or a lack of hope for the future.
Couple counselling promotes open communication between the partners. Each partner is given the chance to clearly state their view and the couple learns new skills for communication and intimacy. If both parties become willing participants, conflict can often be resolved, trust can be restored and past resentments can be overcome.
Relationship Counselling Helps You Stop Fighting & Gets You Really Relating
Relationship counselling is an opportunity for a fighting or dissatisfied couple to share their concerns in a safe and secure environment. While this sounds simple, it can be a powerful and life-changing experience for a dissatisfied couple to learn to hear and attend to each other’s concerns without defensiveness or conflict.
An experienced couple’s counsellor acts as a relationship mediator and teacher. He or she will help you talk openly and honestly about your issues, she will make sure both sides of the story are ‘heard’. She will train you to become better communicators and active listeners. She will help you identify the underlying frustrations behind your arguments, and help you to reconnect and rekindle lost intimacy.
Initially, your relationship counsellor will likely ask you each to share your view of the problem you are having. Your counsellor may also enquire about relevant aspects of your history as a couple, and any relevant individual history (for example, previous relationships, mental or physical health issues, past traumas). She will listen to each side of the story, helping each person to understand the other’s point of view, and helping to elucidate and clarify any misunderstandings in the way you communicate as a couple. This is often an essential insight because the vast majority of dissatisfied couples find that it is misunderstood communication that is at the heart of their problems. For example, he says “I’m just going to clean up the kitchen” and she hears it as “You’re doing a bad job keeping the kitchen clean”. The therapist may clarify what the message being sent was intended to convey. This may for example be “I am going to clean the kitchen, I would love to spend some time with you. Can you come be with me while I do it.”
By clarifying the underlying needs represented by each partners everyday communications, the therapist is able to show the couple a new more compassionate way of looking at the issues which include each partner’s desires and vulnerabilities, as well as practical strategies for improving the situation at home.
Why not to put off Relationship Counselling
Couples seek out relationship counselling for a variety of reasons and at different times or phases during their relationship. Many couples wait too long before seeking help. They avoid the problem, or fail to recognise it until they are really unhappy, or they are too embarrassed to admit that their relationship just isn’t working. This is a shame, most relationship problems are caused by small communication issues which eventually escalate and fester over time. Bad communication can lead to ongoing misunderstandings and arguments. The couple may start to limit communication leading to further feelings of disconnectedness and a lack of intimacy. Sexual difficulties are a natural result of such dynamics.
The issues we work with as Relationship Counsellors
Issues frequently presented by couples who attend counselling are:
- Arguments that recur often with neither party being clear about the underlying issue
- Arguments about a repeated disappointment with the other person such as their lack of attention, cleanliness, care, intelligence or commitment.
- Trust issues following infidelity or because of unresolved issues of jealousy
- Sexual issues, such as a discrepancy between the partner’s sexual desire, a lack of sexual intimacy, or frustration with the lack of one partner’s willingness to initiate sex
- The impact of significant life changes, such as the birth of a baby, illness or a big move
- Conflict with other family members, including children, step-families and in-laws
- Cultural or religious difference or conflict
- Personal issues impacting the relationship, such as depression or addiction
- Financial worry
What is Family Therapy?
Most issues that affect a couple affect their children as well. Family therapy is an opportunity for the entire family to seek assistance from a counsellor. The therapy works in a similar way to couples therapy, providing the opportunity to air grievances and concerns, develop communication skills and improve relationships.
Commonly, family therapy involves teenage and adult children only. Family therapy acknowledges that the children of a relationship are commonly impacted emotionally by the issues experienced by their parents, and the family meetings facilitate a solution that works for all members concerned. At other times, family therapy can be useful for solving issues between adult family members, such as disagreements over business decisions, deceased estates or care of elderly parents.
Selecting your couples therapist
Associated Counsellors offers access to a range of experienced and professional relationship & marriage counsellors at all of our locations. Our counsellors are trained in various modalities that have been shown to help you address your relationship issues. Likewise, all our couples counsellors are members of professional associations such as the APS, the AASW and PCAFA. This means that you can feel assured that your relationship is in safe hands. To discuss how our service might need your particular needs, please contact us via this website or at our phone number.
We welcome your enquiry.
ASSOCIATED RELATIONSHIP & MARRIAGE COUNSELLORS SYDNEY
TEL: (02) 8002 1020
Marriage Counselling across Sydney at:
Sydney CBD, Surry Hills, Bondi Junction, Glebe, Cremorne & at Gosford on the Central Coast.
CPUͼ
2 | 3 | 4 | 5/6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 5000 | 3000 | 2000 | 1000 | ˴APU | ߴAPU | APU | / | / | |
߳˺3990X | |||||||||||||||||||
i9-12900KS | 7 5800X3D (Ϸ) |
||||||||||||||||||
i9-12900K/KF | ߳˺3970X | ||||||||||||||||||
߳˺3960X | |||||||||||||||||||
9 5950X | |||||||||||||||||||
ǿW-3175X | i7-12700K/KF | ߳˺2990WX | |||||||||||||||||
߳˺2970WX | |||||||||||||||||||
i9-10980XE | i7-12700/F | 9 5900X | |||||||||||||||||
i9-9980XE | i5-12600K/KF | 9 3950X | |||||||||||||||||
9 3900XT | |||||||||||||||||||
i9-7980XE | i5-12600 | 9 3900X | |||||||||||||||||
i9-11900K | ߳˺2950X | ||||||||||||||||||
i9-9960X | i9-10900K | 7 5800X | |||||||||||||||||
i9-7960X | i9-10850K | i5-12500 | 7 5700X | 9 3900 | ߳˺1950X | ||||||||||||||
i9-10940X | i7-11700K | ||||||||||||||||||
i9-7940X | i9-9940X | i7-11700 | 7 5700G | ||||||||||||||||
i9-10920X | ߳˺2920X | ||||||||||||||||||
i9-7920X | i9-9920X | i5-12400 | |||||||||||||||||
i9-10900X | 7 3800XT | ߳˺1920X | |||||||||||||||||
i9-9900X | i5-11600K | 5 5600X | |||||||||||||||||
i9-9900KS | 5 5600G | 7 3800X | |||||||||||||||||
i9-7900X | i9-9820X | ||||||||||||||||||
i9-9900K/KF | i7-10700K | 5 5500 | 7 3700X | ||||||||||||||||
i7-6950X | |||||||||||||||||||
i7-9800X | |||||||||||||||||||
i7-7820X | i9-9900 | ||||||||||||||||||
i7-8086K | 7 2700X | ||||||||||||||||||
i5-10600K | 3 5300G | 5 3600XT | ߳˺1900X | ||||||||||||||||
i7-9700K/KF | i5-11400F | 5 3600X | |||||||||||||||||
i7-8700K | i7-9700 | ||||||||||||||||||
i9-9900T | 5 3600 | ||||||||||||||||||
i7-6900K | i7-8700 | i5-9600K/KF | i5-10400/F | 7 2700 | 7 1800X | ||||||||||||||
i7-9700T | i3-12100/F | 7 1700X | |||||||||||||||||
i7-5960X | i7-6850K | i7-8700T | 3 3300X | ||||||||||||||||
i7-7800X | i5-8600K | i5-9600 | 5 2600X | 7 1700 | |||||||||||||||
i7-4960X | i7-5930K | i7-6800K | |||||||||||||||||
i7-3970X | i7-4930K | ||||||||||||||||||
i7-3960X | i7-5820K | i7-7740X | i5-8600 | i5-9500/F | 5 3500X | 5 1600X | |||||||||||||
5 /3500 | 5 2600 | ||||||||||||||||||
i7-4820K |
|
i5-8500 | i5-9400/F | 3 3100 | 5 1600 | ||||||||||||||
i7-3930X | i7-7700K | i5-8400 | |||||||||||||||||
i7-990X | i7-6700K | i5-9600T | |||||||||||||||||
i7-980X | i7-4790K | i7-7700 | i5-8600T | i5-9500T | 5 3400G | 5 2500X | |||||||||||||
i7-4770K | E3-1230 v5 | i5-8500T | i3-9350K/KF | 5 2400G | FX-9590 | ||||||||||||||
i5-9400T | |||||||||||||||||||
i5-8400T | i3-9320 | 3 3200G | 3 2300X | 5 1500X | |||||||||||||||
i7-970 | i3-9300 | 3 2200G | |||||||||||||||||
i7-3820 | i7-4771 | i7-5775C | i5-7640X | i3-8350K | 5 1400 | ||||||||||||||
i7-3770K | i7-4770 | i5-5675C | |||||||||||||||||
i7-2700K | i7-3770 | E3-1230v3 | i5-7600K | i3-9100/F | |||||||||||||||
i7-2600K | E3-1230v2 | i5-6600K | i5-7600 | i3-8300 | |||||||||||||||
i7-2600 | i5-4690K | i5-6600 | i5-7500 | i3-8100 | i3-9300T | FX-9370 | |||||||||||||
E3-1230 | i5-4670K | i5-6500 | i5-7400 | i3-9100T | 3 1300X | FX-8350 | |||||||||||||
i7-960 | i5-3570K | i5-6400 | i3-8300T | FX-8320 | |||||||||||||||
i7-940 | i5-3570 | i3-8100T | 3 1200 | FX-8170 | |||||||||||||||
i5-2550K | i5-4590 | i3-7350K | FX-8150 | ||||||||||||||||
i7-870 | i5-3550 | i5-4570 | FX-8300 | 2 X6 1100T | |||||||||||||||
i5-2500K | i3-7320 | 3000G | 240GE | FX-8140 | 2 X6 1090T | ||||||||||||||
i7-920 | i5-3470 | i3-6320 | i3-7300 | 220GE | FX-8120 | ||||||||||||||
i5-3450 | i5-4440 | i3-6300 | FX-8100 | 2 X6 1055T | |||||||||||||||
i5-2400 | i5-4430 | G5620 | 200GE | A10-7890K | |||||||||||||||
i5-3330 | i3-7100 | G5600 | X4 880K | ||||||||||||||||
i5-2320 | i3-6100 | G5500 | G5420 | A12-9800 | A10-7870K | FX-6300 | |||||||||||||
i5-2310 | i5-4440S | G4620 | G5400 | X4 870K | A10-6800K | FX-6200 | 2 X4 980 | ||||||||||||
i5-2300 | FX-6100 | 2 X4 975 | |||||||||||||||||
i5-760 | i3-4330 | G4600 | A10-7850K/7860L | A10-5800K | FX-4320 | 2 X4 970 | |||||||||||||
i5-750 | i3-3225 | G4520 | X4 860K | FX-4170 | 2 X4 965 | ||||||||||||||
i3-3220 | G4560 | 2 X4 955 | |||||||||||||||||
i3-2130 | i3-3210 | i3-4130 | G4500 | A10-9700 | A10-7800 | A8-6600K | |||||||||||||
i5-680 | X4 950 | X4 845 | A10-5700 | A8-3870K | 2 X4 940 | ||||||||||||||
i3-2120 | G5600T | A10-7700K | X4 760K | X4 651K | |||||||||||||||
i3-2102 | G5500T | X4 750K | X4 641 | 2 X4 645 | |||||||||||||||
i3-2100 | i3-4130T | G4600T | G5420T | A8-7670K | A8-5600K | 2 X4 640 | |||||||||||||
G5400T | G4950 | X4 750 | A6-3670K | ||||||||||||||||
i3-530 | G4500T | G4560T | G4930 | FX-4100 | |||||||||||||||
G4920 | A8-7650K | A8-5500 | |||||||||||||||||
G3430 | G4400 | G4900 | |||||||||||||||||
G2130 | G3420 | G3950 | G4930T | A8-9600 | |||||||||||||||
G870 | G2120 | G3220 | G3920 | G3930 | G4900T | A12-9800E | A8-7600 | ||||||||||||
G860 | G3900 | X4 840 | X4 9750 | ||||||||||||||||
G850 | G3930T | 2 X3 450 | |||||||||||||||||
G3420T | G3900T | 2 X3 440 | |||||||||||||||||
G645 | G2020 | G3220T | A6-7400K | 2 X3 435 | |||||||||||||||
G840 | G2010 | A6-9500 | |||||||||||||||||
G640 | |||||||||||||||||||
G555 | 2 X2 560 | ||||||||||||||||||
G630 | 2 X2 555 | ||||||||||||||||||
G1620 | A6-9500E | A6-5400K | |||||||||||||||||
G550 | G1610 | 2 X2 265 | |||||||||||||||||
G620 | 2 X2 255 | ||||||||||||||||||
G540 | 2 X2 250 | ||||||||||||||||||
G530 | A4-5300 | 2 X2 245 | |||||||||||||||||
A4-3400 | |||||||||||||||||||
2 X2 220 | |||||||||||||||||||
2 X2 215 | |||||||||||||||||||
X2-198 | |||||||||||||||||||
Intel/AMD CPU | ||||||||
칤 | 칤 | |||||||
Alder Lake | 12 | 2021-2022 | 7 (10nm Ehanced SuperFin) | Zen 4 | 7000 | 2022 | 5nm | |
Rocket Lake | 11 | 2021 | 14nm+++ | Zen 3 | 5000 | 2020 | 7nm | |
Comet Lake-S/Skylake-X | ʮ | 2019-2020 | 14nm+++ | Zen 2 | 3000/߳˺3000 | 2019 | 7nm | |
Coffee Lake-Refresh/Skylake-X | ھŴ | 2018-2019 | 14nm++ | Zen+ | 2000߳˺2000 | 2018 | 12nm | |
Coffee Lake | ڰ˴ | 2017-2018 | 14nm++ | Zen | 1000/߳˺1000 | 2017 | 14nm | |
Kaby Lake | ߴ | 2016 | 14nm+ | Piledrever | ڶFX | 2012-2013 | 32nm | |
Skylake | 2015 | 14nm | Bulldozer | һFX | 2011 | 32nm | ||
Broadwell | 2014-2015 | 14nm | Godavari | ߴAPU | 2015 | 28nm | ||
Haswell | Ĵ | 2013 | 22nm | Carrizo | APU | 2014 | 28nm | |
Ivy Bridge | 2012 | 22nm | Richland | APU | 2013 | 32nm | ||
Sandy Bridge | ڶ | 2011 | 32nm | Trinity | ڶAPU | 2012 | 32nm | |
Nehalem/Westmere | һ | 2008-2011 | 32nm | Llano | һAPU | 2011 | 32nm | |
Conroe | 2 | 2006-2008 | 65/45nm | K10 | / | 2007-2011 | 45nm | |
Netburst | 4/D | 2000-2008 | 65nm | K8 | 64 | 2003-2007 | 65nm | |
Tualatin | 3 | 1999-2001 | 130nm | K7 | XP | 1999-2004 | 130nm |
&֮·Ȩ ԥICP18024899-2ԥ 41010502003949
ݰοϸܸߵͶԱȡδȨת |
AMD Ryzen 7000 im Test: So schnell sind 7950X und 7700X: Leistungsaufnahme und Effizienz
2/8
Jan-Frederik Timm et al.
673 Kommentare
Inhaltsverzeichnis
TDP und PPT steigen deutlich
Die Leistung gibt es bei Ryzen 7000 ab Werk nicht „umsonst“. AMD hat mit Ryzen 7000 sowohl die TDP als auch das „Package Power Target“ (PPT) angehoben – und das deutlich. CPUs, die vormals mit 105 Watt TDP und 142 Watt PPT daherkamen, sind als Ryzen 7000 jetzt bei 170 Watt TDP und 230 Watt PPT zu finden. Bisherige 65/76-Watt-CPUs steigen auf 105/142 Watt. Zur Erinnerung respektive Einordnung:
- TDP: „Die TDP ist ein striktes Maß für die thermische Verlustleistung eines ASIC, die das minimale Kühlsystem definiert, um die spezifizierte Leistung zu erreichen“, definiert AMD. Die TDP hat zum Ziel, Herstellern vorzuschreiben, welche Verlustleistung ein Kühlsystem mindestens dauerhaft abführen muss, um den Prozessor nicht auszubremsen. Die TDP darf überschritten werden, solange die Temperaturen es zulassen. Maximal darf die TDP auf dem Niveau der PPT liegen.
- PPT: Das „Package Power Target“ (PPT) stellt die von AMD fest definierte Obergrenze der CPU-Leistungsaufnahme dar. Solange es die Temperatur zulässt, darf die CPU oberhalb der TDP bis hinauf zur PPT operieren. Bei den X-CPUs ist das in der Regel unter Einsatz eines guten Tower-Kühlers der Fall. Details gibt es im Artikel CPU-Leistungsaufnahme: Was „TDP“ bei Intel Core und AMD Ryzen bedeutet.
Der Anstieg ist beachtlich und kommt in Anbetracht der identischen Anzahl an Kernen und dem effizienteren Prozess (5 nm vs. 7 nm) einer kleinen Überraschung gleich. AMD nennt als Gründe die Integration einer iGPU und insbesondere mit Blick auf die PPT von 230 Watt, die auch das Maximum für den neuen Sockel AM5 darstellt, eine gewisse Zukunftssicherheit. Doch Vorsicht: Nicht jedes günstige AM5-Mainboard wird auch für bis zu 230 Watt PPT ausgelegt sein, darauf weist AMD selbst hin.
TDP und PPT der X-CPUs mit Zen 4 und Zen 3 im Vergleich
CPU | TDP | max. Verbrauch (PPT) | PPT/TDP |
---|---|---|---|
Ryzen 9 7950X | 170 Watt | 230 Watt | 1,35 |
+62 % | +62 % | ||
Ryzen 9 5950X | 105 Watt | 142 Watt | 1,35 |
Ryzen 9 7900X | 170 Watt | 230 Watt | 1,35 |
+62 % | +62 % | ||
Ryzen 9 5900X | 105 Watt | 142 Watt | 1,35 |
Ryzen 7 5800X | 105 Watt | 142 Watt | 1,35 |
Ryzen 7 7700X | 105 Watt | 142 Watt | 1,35 |
+62 % | +87 % | ||
Ryzen 7 5700X | 65 Watt | 76 Watt | 1,17 |
Ryzen 5 7600X | 105 Watt | 142 Watt | 1,35 |
+62 % | +87 % | ||
Ryzen 5 5600X | 65 Watt | 76 Watt | 1,17 |
Leistungsaufnahme in Anwendungen ab Werk
Für die Leistungsaufnahme ab Werk bedeuten die neuen TDP- und PPT-Grenzwerte unter Mehr-Kern-Volllast isoliert betrachtet erst einmal nichts Gutes. Beide getesteten CPUs haben gegenüber dem direkten Vorgänger nicht nur auf dem Papier, sondern auch in der Praxis unter Last zugelegt. Die nachfolgenden Werte wurden auf dem Asus ROG Crosshair X670E Hero Wi-Fi ermittelt, das Onboard-WLAN-Modul war deaktiviert.
Grundsätzlich fällt auf: Ryzen 9 7950X und Ryzen 7 7700X agieren in vielen Anwendungen nicht an der PPT-Schwelle von 230 respektive 142 Watt. Der Ryzen 9 bewegt sich zwischen 190 und 230 Watt, der Ryzen 7 zwischen 120 und 142 Watt.
Neben dem gestiegenen Verbrauch unter Multi-Core-Volllast ist der Bedarf unter Single-Core-Lasten auf dem Asus Crosshair X670E Hero Wi-Fi auffällig, der zum Teil auch vom höheren Plattformverbrauch herrührt – gemessen wird die Leistungsaufnahme sowohl unter Teillast (CB R20 Single-Core) als auch unter Leerlauf (Windows-Desktop) an der Steckdose.
Ein Blick auf die Package-Power im jeweiligen Szenario sowohl auf dem Asus ROG Crosshair X670E Hero Wi-Fi (wie oben) als auch auf dem Gigabyte X670E Aorus Master zeigt: Im Cinebench R20 Single-Core liegt der Verbrauch auf der Platine von Asus höher, im Leerlauf ist hingegen das Board von Gigabyte leicht „zurück“. Wären die oben aufgeführten Messungen auf dem Mainboard von Gigabyte erfolgt, wäre der Strombedarf unter Teillast der Plattform gegenüber Ryzen 5000 höchstwahrscheinlich nicht gestiegen.
Die Volllasteffizienz ist gefallen
In der Regel wird mehr Verbrauch mit dem Argument „Aber die Leistung ist ja noch deutlicher gestiegen!“ abgetan (Stichwort Effizienz), wenngleich ein größerer Verbrauch einen größeren Verbrauch bedeutet. Bei Ryzen 7000 zieht dieses Argument ab Werk aber nicht.
Die neuen CPUs nehmen ab Werk unter Last nämlich nicht nur mehr elektrische Leistung auf, sie können das unter Mehr-Kern-Last auch nicht durch die Mehrleistung mit einem Verweis auf die gestiegene Effizienz abtun: Wie das nachfolgende Beispiel (Video-Transcoding UHD H.265 60 FPS in AV1 UHD 60 FPS in HandBrake) zeigt, agieren sowohl Ryzen 9 7950X als auch Ryzen 7 7700X ineffizienter.
CPU | Dauer AV1-Encoding in HandBrake | ∅ CPU-Leistungsaufnahme | Energieverbrauch |
---|---|---|---|
Ryzen 9 7950X | 1. 200 Sek. | 191,1 Watt | 63,7 Wh |
Ryzen 9 5950X | 1.545 Sek. | 131,5 Watt | 56,5 Wh |
Ryzen 9 7900X | Test steht noch aus | ||
Ryzen 9 5900X | 1.876 Sek. | 142,3 Watt | 74,1 Wh |
Ryzen 7 5800X | 2.565 Sek. | 127,5 Watt | 90,8 Wh |
Ryzen 7 7700X | 2.066 Sek. | 124,9 Watt | 71,7 Wh |
Ryzen 7 5700X | 2.825 Sek. | 77,5 Watt | 61,4 Wh |
Ryzen 5 7600X | Test steht noch aus | ||
Ryzen 5 5600X | 3.477 Sek. | 77,3 Watt | 74,6 Wh |
Und wie sieht es in Spielen aus? Ausführlich ist ComputerBase diesem Thema im separaten Artikel Gaming-Benchmarks: Ryzen 9 7950X und Ryzen 7 7700X vs. 5950X und 12900KS nachgegangen, an dieser Stelle daher nur ein Auszug.
Leistungsaufnahme in Spielen ab Werk
In Spielen hält sich der Mehrverbrauch im Vergleich Ryzen 9 7950X vs. Ryzen 9 5950X mit 5 Watt in Grenzen. In diesem Fall zieht unter Berücksichtigung der Mehrleistung sogar wieder das Argument: „Aber die Effizienz!“ Der Ryzen 7 7700X zeigt sogar im Vergleich zum in Spielen extrem effizienten Ryzen 7 5800X3D nur einen minimalen Anstieg, gegenüber dem Ryzen 7 5800X (hier nicht aufgeführt) sollte die Leistungsaufnahme sogar gefallen sein (siehe auch: Gaming-Benchmarks: Ryzen 7 5800X3D vs. 5800X, Core i9-12900K und 12900KS).
Ryzen 9 7950X Package-Power (AVG/Max) |
Ryzen 9 5950X Package-Power (AVG/Max) |
Ryzen 7 5800X3D Package-Power (AVG/Max) |
Core i9-12900KS Package-Power (AVG/Max) |
Ryzen 7 7700X Package-Power (AVG/Max) |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age of Empires IV | 95/102 Watt | 86/91 Watt | 44/52 Watt | 106/145 Watt | 47/52 Watt |
Anno 1800 | 101/104 Watt | 96/100 Watt | 56/64 Watt | 135/139 Watt | 59/64 Watt |
CoD: Warzone | 119/125 Watt | 110/116 Watt | 73/77 Watt | 167/184 Watt | 81/87 Watt |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 125/130 Watt | 122/129 Watt | 73/76 Watt | 198/212 Watt | 61/62 Watt |
Death Stranding | 137/140 Watt | 129/136 Watt | 71/80 Watt | 211/229 Watt | 86/93 Watt |
Dota 2 | 118/126 Watt | 113/119 Watt | 76/79 Watt | 155/173 Watt | 73/80 Watt |
F1 22 | 114/120 Watt | 114/118 Watt | 71/74 Watt | 155/161 Watt | 77/80 Watt |
Far Cry 6 | 111/116 Watt | 107/112 Watt | 66/70 Watt | 141/150 Watt | 69/74 Watt |
Fortnite | 120/124 Watt | 113/118 Watt | 68/70 Watt | 175/182 Watt | 78/83 Watt |
Ghostwire: Tokyo | 117/121 Watt | 113/118 Watt | 68/70 Watt | 176/183 Watt | 80/83 Watt |
Guardians of the Galaxy | 115/122 Watt | 112/123 Watt | 74/81 Watt | 174/195 Watt | 66/71 Watt |
Resident Evil Village | 114/119 Watt | 106/113 Watt | 71/75 Watt | 155/167 Watt | 78/85 Watt |
Spider-Man Remastered | 125/132 Watt | 118/123 Watt | 75/79 Watt | 179/190 Watt | 84/89 Watt |
Spider-Man Remastered + RT | 129/133 Watt | 128/134 Watt | 84/88 Watt | 218/222 Watt | 70/71 Watt |
Valorant | 127/134 Watt | 125/131 Watt | 77/81 Watt | 169/177 Watt | 71/75 Watt |
Durchschnitt | 118/123 Watt | 113/119 Watt | 70/74 Watt | 168/181 Watt | 72/77 Watt |
Der ab Werk höhere Verbrauch von Ryzen 7000 gegenüber Ryzen 5000 ist damit insbesondere ein Thema bei Multi-Core-Volllasten. Im Leerlauf, bei Single-Core- und in Spiele-Lasten ist das hingegen weniger der Fall.
Die Frage, die sich anschließt, lautet: Benötigt Zen 4 in Multi-Core-Szenarien mit hoher Last denn wirklich derart viel Energie, um sich vom Vorgänger abzusetzen? Oder darf es auch etwas weniger ohne großen Leistungsverlust sein?
Effizienz bei reduzierter TDP (inkl. Eco-Mode)
Die Antwort lautet: Es darf etwas weniger sein und der Leistungsverlust ist verschwindend gering.
Ryzen 9 7950X bis zu 230 Watt statt vormals bis zu 142 Watt zuzugestehen, hebt die Leistung im Multi-Core-Testparcours um lediglich 5 Prozent an. Andersherum sinkt die Leistung um nur 5 Prozent, wenn die bekannte Obergrenze für den 16-Kern-Prozessor genutzt wird. Und selbst bei 88 Watt, also lediglich 38 % der offiziellen Obergrenze, ist die neue CPU noch 12 Prozent schneller als der Vorgänger.
Leistung | Ryzen 9 7950X Multi-Core-Leistung |
Vorsprung auf Ryzen 9 5950X mit 142 Watt PPT |
---|---|---|
230 Watt PPT (100 %) | 100 % | 37 % |
142 Watt PPT (62 %) | 95 % | 31 % |
88 Watt PPT (38 %) | 82 % | 12 % |
65 Watt PPT (28 %) | 69 % | -6 % |
45 Watt PPT (20 %) | 45 % | -39 % |
Auch klassenübergreifend wird klar, dass Ryzen 7000 die höhere TDP im hausinternen Wettstreit nicht benötigt hätte. Der Ryzen 7 7700X (105/142 Watt), der offiziell dem Ryzen 7 5700X (65/76 Watt) folgt, lässt dem Ryzen 7 5800X (105/142 Watt) nicht den Hauch einer Chance, selbst wenn er bei maximal 65 Watt betrieben wird. Und mit 45 Watt maximaler Leistungsaufnahme erzielt diese CPU noch immer ein Patt mit dem größeren Vorgänger.
Mit 45 Watt effizienter als Ryzen 6000 Mobile
Noch ein Vergleich gefällig? Mit 45 Watt ist der Ryzen 7 7700X (8 Kerne) in Multi-Core-Szenarien über 20 Prozent schneller als die auf maximale Effizienz getrimmte Notebook-APU Ryzen 9 6900HS (8 Kerne) bei ebenfalls 45 Watt.
Auch gegenüber Intel gewinnt der neue 8-Kern-Prozessor wieder die Oberhand, wobei es stark davon abhängig ist, welche CPUs in welcher Wattklasse miteinander verglichen werden: Am oberen Ende schlägt ein Ryzen 9 7950X mit lediglich 65 Watt den Core i9-12900K mit voller Leistungsaufnahme, am unteren liegen Ryzen 7 7700X und Core i9-12900K bei 88 Watt nahe beieinander. Mit noch weniger Leistungsaufnahme geht das Rennen wiederum erneut deutlich zugunsten von AMD aus. Ebenfalls klar wird: Ohne E-Cores haben die Alder-Lake-CPUs keine Chance.
Effizienz bei reduzierter VCore (Undervolting)
Ein weiterer Ansatz, Ryzen 7000 zu mehr Effizienz zu bewegen, ist das Herabsenken der CPU-Versorgungsspannung (VCore), das auch als „Undervolting“ (UV) bekannt ist. Das schränkt die CPU im Gegensatz zu einem PPT-Limit nicht absolut in ihrer Leistungsaufnahme ein, sondern reduziert die Leistungsaufnahme in jedem Lastzustand. Beides kann damit auch kombiniert werden. Ein niedrigeres TDP-Limit geht in der Regel ohne Stabilitätsrisiken einher, während eine zu geringe VCore zum Absturz führt.
Im Test der Redaktion offenbarte der Ryzen 9 7950X großes UV-Potential: Mit einem VCore-Offset von -100 mV (-0,100 Volt) erwies sich das System zwar nicht mehr in allen Lasten als zuverlässig stabil, -90 mV (-0,090 Volt) waren in den getesteten Apps aber möglich. Leistungsaufnahme und Temperatur sanken dadurch signifikant. Zugleich stieg der Takt, wenngleich nur gering.
Leistungsdaten mit und ohne UV (Noctua NH-D15S), Handbrake
CPU | ∅ CPU-Temperatur | ∅ Leistungsaufnahme | ∅ CPU-Takt |
---|---|---|---|
Ryzen 9 7950X | 93,9 °C | 189,3 Watt | 5.085 MHz |
Ryzen 9 7950X UV (-100 mV) | 81,7 °C | 169,5 Watt | 5.173 MHz |
Effizienz vs. Balken-Wettkampf-Wahn
Die ersten Absätze am Kopf dieser Seite haben es eher weniger vermuten lassen, doch Ryzen 7000 macht in Kombination aus neuem 5-nm-Prozess von TSMC und AMDs darauf angepasster Zen-4-Architektur gegenüber Zen 3 einen beachtlichen Sprung in Sachen Effizienz. Wer allerdings nur auf Leistung und Leistungsaufnahme im Werkszustand blickt bzw. die CPUs unter Volllast so betreibt, der bekommt davon nichts mit, denn AMD betreibt die CPUs weit jenseits ihres Sweetspots, um im Wettkampf um den längsten Balken mit Intel zu bestehen.
Bei 170 Watt ist Zen 4 effizienter als Zen 3, aber bei Zen 3 gab es keine SKU mit diesem Verbrauch (Bild: AMD)
Wer von der deutlich gestiegenen Effizienz der Ryzen-7000-CPUs profitieren will, der sollte die CPUs daher manuell in der Leistungsaufnahme einschränken. Der Leistungsverlust ist minimal, wenn vom neuen höheren auf das altbekannte Niveau zurückgewechselt wird. Auf die Performance in Spielen hat das keinen Einfluss, da die Verlustleistung noch darunter liegt.
In Anwendungen wird der jeweilige Vorgänger selbst mit 88 Watt (7950X) respektive 65 Watt (7700X) noch geschlagen. Die Spiele-Leistung würde bei einer solchen Deckelung in diesem Fall dann allerdings ebenfalls leicht sinken.
Vorige Seite
Seite 2/8
Nächste Seite
Temperaturen und Kühlung
673 Kommentare
Themen:
- AMD
- CPU
- Ryzen
- Zen
-
Jan-Frederik TimmE-MailTwitter
… ist Diplom-Ingenieur und schreibt auf ComputerBase seit dem Jahr 2001 über die neueste Hardware, macOS und Windows.
-
Volker RißkaE-Mail
… schreibt seit dem Jahr 2002 über CPUs, deren Architekturen und Fertigungsverfahren sowie Mainboards und RAM.
Bildübersicht
CPU性能比較表【2022年最新版】 | PC自由帳
2022年版デスクトップPC向けのCPUの性能一覧表です。(ノートPC版はこちら→CPU性能比較【最新版】)
現在メジャーなものと、以前メジャーだった幅広い世代のCPUを抜粋して掲載しています。
※掲載の価格は、更新時点での主に価格.comやAmazonの価格となっています。現在は異なる可能性があるため注意してください。
見方・各項目の説明
表記例:
各項目の説明
CPU名称:CPUの名称。
PassMark :特に有名なベンチマークスコアの一つ。総合スコアのようなタイプのベンチマーク。
Cinebench R20 シングル :CPUの1コアでの処理性能(シングルスレッド性能)を表すベンチマークスコアの一つ。高いほど低負荷な処理のレスポンスが良くなる他、基本的にどの処理においても有利に働きます。
Cinebench R20 マルチ:CPUの全コア使用時の処理性能(マルチスレッド性能)を表すベンチマークスコアの一つ。高いほど膨大な量のデータ処理や多数の処理を並行して行う場合に有利に働きます(例:動画エンコード、レンダリング、複数ソフトの同時使用)。
コア:CPUのコアの総数。多いほど多数の処理を並行して行う場合に有利に働く他、コア数が多いほどマルチスレッド性能も高くなり易いので、そちらのメリットも享受できる可能性が高いです。ただし、多いほど消費電力や発熱も多い傾向があるので注意が必要です。
スレッド:CPUのスレッドの総数。スレッドはシステム上で認識するコア数みたいなものと思って貰えばOK。「1コアあたり1スレッド」のCPUと「1コアあたり2スレッド」のCPUがある。
定格クロック:CPUの定格の周波数。仕様の異なるコアが複数存在する場合は高性能な方のコアのもの。
最大クロック:CPUのターボーブースト(TB)時の最大周波数。それぞれのコアで最大周波数が設定されており、全コアが表記の数値まで上昇する訳ではないので注意。仕様の異なるコアが複数存在する場合は高性能な方のコアのもの。
TDP:熱設計電力のこと。大体の消費電力の目安となる。最近のCPUはTDPが段階的に設定されているケースも多く、表記の数値よりも大幅に多くなることが基本なので注意。
価格:大体の市場価格。Amazonや価格. comを主に参考とした最安値価格。
コスパ:1円あたりのPassMarkのスコア。小数点第3位を四捨五入。
関連記事・参考サイト
特におすすめのデスクトップ向けCPU【2022年5月更新】
今おすすめのCPU(デスクトップ用)
- Core i7-12700(F)
- 12コア20スレッドの第12世代のCore i7のK無しモデル。4万円台という価格ながら12コアを搭載しており、優れたマルチスレッド性能を持つのが魅力。ただし、ぱっと見はK付きよりも省電力に見えると思いますが、実際には大して変わらない点は注意です。その代わり性能の差も小さいのでコスパは良いです。
- Core i7-12700K(F)
- 12コア20スレッドの第12世代のCore i7です。20スレッドによる非常に優れたマルチスレッド性能と非常に優れたゲーミング性能を持ちます。コスパが非常に良いです。消費電力・発熱はかなり多いものの、Core i9 ほど多くはないのも高評価です。コスパが悪くなりすぎない範囲で高性能CPUを選ぶ際にはかなり魅力的な選択肢になると思います。
- Core i5-12400(F)
- 2万円台の第12世代のCore i5の下位モデル。高効率コアの追加が無かったため、上位モデルに比べるとマルチスレッド性能は伸びなかったものの、コアあたりの性能は順調に向上しており、コスパは従来通り非常に良い。低価格コスパ特化ゲーミングPCの安定択。
- Core i5-12600K(F)
- 10コア16スレッドの第12世代のCore i5の上位モデル。16スレッドによる優れたマルチスレッド性能と非常に優れたゲーミング性能を持ち、「Core i5」という肩書きながら、その性能は前世代のCore i9を上回っている高性能CPUです。その高性能ながら価格は4万円以下と高くなく、特にゲーミングコスパが良いです。発熱・消費電力が上位モデルほどではないしてもミドルレンジモデルの肩書きよりは大分多い点には注意が必要ですが、Core i5よりもCore i7に近い印象を受ける高性能コスパ重視CPUです。
- Core i9-12900K(F)
- 16コア24スレッドの第12世代のCore i9です。24スレッドによる圧倒的なマルチスレッド性能と非常に優れたゲーミング性能を持ちます。価格は7万円台と非常に高価ですが、16コアというコア数を考えると悪くありません。ゲーミングコスパはCore i7より悪化してしまいますが、マルチスレッド性能コスパは非常に優れています。マルチスレッド性能の高さを重視する人にとっては非常に魅力的なCPUです。しかし、消費電力・発熱はめちゃくちゃ多く、電源やCPUクーラーには十分に注意を払う必要があります。
- Ryzen 9 5900X
- Zen3搭載のRyzen 9です。12コアによる非常に優れたマルチスレッド性能を発揮します。また、その割には消費電力がそこまで多くなく、ワットパフォーマンスが非常に優れている点が魅力です。Alder Lakeが登場してから値下げが相次ぎ、マルチスレッド性能コスパも良くなりました。ただし、第12世代Core Core i9にゲーミング性能やマルチスレッド性能自体は負けてしまっているため、ゲームメインの人には効率的とは言えない点に注意です。
- Ryzen 9 5950X
- Zen3搭載のRyzen 9の最上位モデルです。16コア32スレッドによる驚異的なマルチスレッド性能を持っている上、電力効率も非常に良いのが魅力です。価格は非常に高価ですが、Alder Lakeが登場してから値下げが相次いだこともあり、効率を求めるなら非常に強力なCPUです。ただし、第12世代Coreには基本ゲーミング性能は負けてしまっているので、ゲームしかしないという人にはやや不向きな点は注意です。
- Ryzen 5 5600G / Ryzen 7 5700G
- Zen3のRyzen APUです。グラフィック性能が内蔵にしては高いため、重いゲームやデータ量の多い動画や画像編集をしないならグラボが要らないのが魅力です。また、電力効率が非常に良く、処理性能の高さよりも電力効率を重視する場合のマルチスレッド処理にも最適です。ライトユーザーなら非常にコスパの良いCPUに仕上がっています。
おすすめBTOパソコンショップを一部紹介
BTOパソコンショップを一部紹介
- FRONTIER(フロンティア)
常時開催セールのコスパが非常に良い。全体的にSSDの容量が多く、日本製コンデンサ仕様の電源もポイントが高い。最強コスパの筆頭候補ショップ。
- ドスパラ
言わずと知れた大手BTOパソコンショップ。常に相場平均より少し良いくらいのコスパで販売しており、安定感がある。久しぶりにリニューアルされたケースの質がコスパ重視機にも採用されるものとしては良い。
- ストーム(STORM)
知名度はちょっと低いけどコスパの良いBTOパソコンショップ。パーツ選びが自作ユーザーっぽくて個人的に好き。カスタマイズ選択肢は少ないけど価格は安いのも魅力。
- PCワンズ
元はPCパーツショップで、一つのサービスとして、単体販売のパーツを選択してフルカスタマイズのPCを注文できるというのがある。市販の超豊富なPCパーツ群から選ぶという、ズバ抜けた自由度が魅力のショップ。組み立て&セットアップ費用に固定の費用が掛かるので、金額が高いほど割安といった感じになる。他BTOと違い、パッケージ版のOSを追加費用なしで導入できるのも大きなメリットで、購入直後のカスタマイズにも対応可能。
- TSUKUMO(ツクモ)
コスパの良いBTOパソコンショップながら、地味に標準搭載のWindowsが全てDSP版で統一されているため(2020年3月時点)、他の大手BTOより実質コスパがちょっと安いことが多い(活かせるケースはそんなに多くないとは思うけど)。PCパーツや周辺機器販売も行っており、品揃えは豊富で安い。
- パソコンSHOPアーク(ark)
大手ショップと違い、ケースも市販のものが使用されているため種類が非常に豊富なのが魅力。価格自体は大手よりは若干高めに感じるが、品質にもこだわりが見られ、標準構成でも少し高めのパーツが使われている事が多いため、実質的なコスパは意外と悪くないことも多い。
絞り込み
メーカー
IntelAMD
主流以外
Core XRyzen Threadripper
世代
最新世代Intel第12世代Intel第11世代Intel第10世代Intel第9世代Ryzen 7000Ryzen 5000Ryzen第3世代
熱設計電力(TDP)
省電力(65W以下)高消費電力(77W以上)
ベンチマーク
PassMarkCinebench R20 マルチCinebench R20 シングル
TDPは熱設計消費電力の事で、大体の消費電力の目安。
ベンチマークスコアは、PassMarkのPerformanceTestを参考にした値。
i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 3500 — Just Cause 4 vs GTX 1660 performance comparison
GTX 1660 with
Intel Core i5-8400 @ 2. 80GHz
Just Cause 4
GTX 1660 with
AMD Ryzen 5 3500
i5-8400
Ryzen 5 3500
Multi-Thread Performance
11694 Pts
1655 Pts
Single-Thread Performance
2334 Pts
2820 Pts
Just Cause
0006
i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 3500 in Just Cause 4 using GTX 1660 — CPU performance comparison at Ultra, High, Medium and Low Quality settings at 1080p, 1440p, Ultrawide, 4K
i5-8400
Ryzen 5 3500
Ultra Quality
Resolution | Frames per second |
---|---|
1080p |
62.2 FPS |
1080p |
65.2 FPS |
1440p |
46.0 FPS |
1440p |
48.2 FPS |
2160p |
23.9 FPS |
2160p |
25.1 FPS |
w1440p |
37. 4 FPS |
w1440p |
39.2 FPS |
High quality
Approval | Frames per second |
---|---|
1080p |
105.4 FPS |
1080p |
109.7 FPS |
1440p |
81.4 FPS |
1440p |
84.7 FPS |
2160p |
46.2 FPS |
2160p |
48.2 FPS |
w1440p |
68.1 FPS |
w1440p |
70.9 FPS |
Medium quality
Resolution | Frames per second |
---|---|
1080p |
148.6 FPS |
1080p |
154.2 FPS |
1440p |
116. 8 FPS |
1440p |
121.3 FPS |
2160p |
68.5 FPS |
2160p |
71.3 FPS |
w1440p |
98.8 FPS |
w1440p |
102.7 FPS |
Low quality
Resolution | Frames per second |
---|---|
1080p |
235.0 FPS |
1080p |
243.2 FPS |
1440p |
187.6 FPS |
1440p |
194.4 FPS |
2160p |
113.1 FPS |
2160p |
117.6 FPS |
w1440p |
160.3 FPS |
w1440p |
166.2 FPS |
i5-8400
- i5-8400 has higher level 2 cache. The data/instructions that need to be processed can be loaded from the fast L2 and the CPU doesn’t have to wait for the very slow DDR
- The i5-8400 has a higher level 3 cache. This is useful when you have significant multi-processor workloads, many computational processes at the same time. Rather on a server rather than a personal computer for interactive workloads.
- The i5-8400 has more cores. The advantage of having more cores is that the system can handle more threads. Each core can process a separate data stream. This architecture greatly improves the performance of a system running parallel applications.
- The i5-8400 has more themes. Large programs are divided into threads (small sections) so that the processor can execute them simultaneously to speed up execution.
- In some games, a processor with a higher clock speed, or with the technical name IPC (Instructions per clock), performs better than other processors with more cores and a lower core frequency.
- The i5-8400 has a higher turbo clock. Turbo Boost is a processor feature that will run at a processor clock speed faster than its base clock speed if certain conditions are present. This will allow older software that runs on fewer cores to run better on newer hardware. Since games are also software, they are also applicable.
RAM
Ryzen 5 3500
- Ryzen 5 3500 The Ryzen 5 3500 is more energy efficient and generates less heat.
- Ryzen 5 3500 The Ryzen 5 3500 has a smaller process size. The faster a transistor can turn on and off, the faster it can work. And transistors that turn on and off with less power are more efficient, reducing the operating power or «dynamic power» required by the processor.
Compare i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 3500 specifications
i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 3500 Architecture
i5-8400 | Ryzen 5 3500 | |
---|---|---|
Codename | Coffee Lake | Zen 2 |
Generation | Core i5 (Coffee Lake) |
Ryzen 5 (Zen 2) |
Market | Desktop | Desktop |
Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4 |
Part# | SLAPL | unknown |
Production Status | Active | Active |
Released | Oct 2017 | Jul 2019 |
i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 3500 Cache
i5-8400 | Ryzen 5 3500 | |
---|---|---|
Cache L1 | 64K (per core) | 96K (per core) |
Cache L2 | 256K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
Cache L3 | 9MB (shared) | 32MB (shared) |
i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 3500 Cores
i5-8400 | Ryzen 5 3500 | |
---|---|---|
# of Cores | 6 | 6 |
# of Threads | 6 | 12 |
Integrated Graphics | N/A | N/A |
SMP# CPUs | 1 | 1 |
i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 3500 Features
i5-8400 | Ryzen 5 3500 |
---|
i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 3500 Performance
i5-8400 | Ryzen 5 3500 | |
---|---|---|
Base Clock | 100 MHz | 100 MHz |
Frequency | 2. 8 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
Multiplier | 28.0x | 36.0x |
Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |
TDP | 65W | 65W |
Turbo Clock | up to 4 GHz | up to 4.2 GHz |
Voltage | variable | variable |
i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 3500 Physical
i5-8400 | Ryzen 5 3500 | |
---|---|---|
Die Size | unknown | unknown |
Foundry | Intel | TSMC |
Package | FC-LGA1151 | |
Process Size | 14 nm | 7 nm |
Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | AMD Socket AM4 |
Transistors | unknown | 4,800 million |
tCaseMax | 72°C | unknown |
90
Compare i5-8400 vs Ryzen 5 3500 in more games
Elden Ring
2022
God of War
2022
Overwatch 2
2022
Forza Horizon 5
2021
Halo Infinite
2021
Battlefield 2042
2021
Assassin’s Creed Valhalla
2020
Microsoft Flight Simulator
2020
Valorant
2020
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War
2020
Death Stranding
2020
Marvel’s Avengers
2020
Godfall
2020
Cyberpunk 2077
2020
Apex Legends
2019
Anthem
2019
Far Cry New Dawn
2019
Resident Evil 2
2019
Metro Exodus
2019
World War Z
2019
Gears of War 5
2019
F1 2019
2019
GreedFall
2019
Borderlands 3
2019
Call of Duty Modern Warfare
2019
Red Dead Redemption 2
2019
Need for Speed: Heat
2019
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey
2018
Battlefield V
2018
Call of Duty: Black Ops 4
2018
Final Fantasy XV
2018
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
2018
Forza Horizon 4
2018
Fallout 76
2018
Hitman 2
2018
Just Cause 4
2018
Monster Hunter: World
2018
Strange Brigade
2018
Assassin’s Creed Origins
2017
Dawn of War III
2017
Ghost Recon Wildlands
2017
Destiny 2
2017
PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds
2017
Fortnite Battle Royale
2017
Need For Speed: Payback
2017
For Honor
2017
Project CARS 2
2017
Forza Motorsport 7
2017
Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation
2016
Battlefield 1
2016
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
2016
Doom
2016
F1 2016
2016
Total War: Warhammer
2016
Overwatch
2016
Dishonored 2
2016
Grand Theft Auto V
2015
Rocket League
2015
Need For Speed
2015
Project CARS
2015
Rainbow Six Siege
2015
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
2012
League of Legends
2009
Minecraft
2009
Holy Battle Assemblies! GECID.
com. Page 1
::>Processors
>2019
> Comparison of Intel Core i5-8400 + GTX 1060 6GB vs. AMD Ryzen 5 2600X + RX 580 8GB: Build Holy Battle!
06-04-2019
Page 1
Page 2
One page
We all know well that it is better to update or assemble the system before the release of a new generation of processors and video cards. Now is a great time for this: until the summer in the video accelerator segment, supply will exceed demand and more and more models of the GeForce GTX 16 series will appear. Therefore, prices will be low. Also debuting 3rd generation Ryzen and AMD Navi this summer. In turn, Intel is actively preparing new 10-core processors. Also, now is a very good time to buy an SSD, but you can take the RAM at a minimum and wait a couple of months for the price tags to fall even more.
In a nutshell, sellers are cutting prices in hopes of clearing out inventory and clearing out inventory so we can upgrade our systems at a profit. But the question arises: take a bunch of Intel + NVIDIA or give preference to AMD. Both options have the right to life, however, sofa armies on both sides regularly make each other nervous.
We did not come to the battlefield empty-handed. With the support of our partners, we put together two mid-range systems to test how well they cope with work tasks and run modern games.
Attention haters! We do not claim that the participating pieces of iron or the assemblies themselves are generally optimal. You can choose a different graphics card, a more powerful processor, or a larger SSD to make the system fit your needs. We also do not say that such and such an AMD processor is the equivalent of a competitive model from Intel, and taking another is strictly prohibited. Not at all — there is always a better option, but we are limited in the components available for testing. So think of this as our variation on mid-price systems. And constructive criticism is always welcome.
And one more thing — we are not tied to the prices of specific components. For example, the test involves an 8-gigabyte MSI Radeon RX 580 MECH 2 video card, but we take the cost of the cheapest model of the RX 580 series on hotline.ua. This also applies to other pieces of hardware, so the indicated prices for final assemblies are an indicative level, without being tied to any vendor.
With the introductory part finished, let’s move on to the systems themselves. Let’s first imagine the «blue-green» configuration. The 6-core 6-thread Core i5-9 models are great for mid-price builds400F and Core i5-8400 . The first novelty is devoid of a video core, so it definitely requires a video card. It is slightly cheaper and 100 MHz faster in terms of nominal and dynamic speed. The second has already passed the test of time. Over the past six months, it has fallen in price by almost $100, and now it can be found for $209.
Its base frequency is 2. 8 GHz, and in dynamic mode, all 6 cores can be accelerated to 3.8 GHz. One core can run briefly at 4 GHz. Also included are 9MB L3 cache, a dual-channel RAM controller with guaranteed support for 128 GB DDR4-2666 and an Intel UHD Graphics 630 video core for a rainy day.
In order not to spend extra money, we took a boxed cooler, although it is noisy at high load. As an alternative, you can look for a cheaper Tray version of the processor, and buy a better cooler with the money saved.
Since this CPU can’t be overclocked, it makes little sense to overpay for a board on a top-end Z-chipset. Of course, if you want to overclock RAM or buy a K-series processor in the future, then look towards models based on the Intel Z370 or Z390. And in our case, something on the B360 chipset will do. You can also take it on h410, but this is already a completely budget option, mainly with two DIMM slots and no VRM cooling. Therefore, problems may arise in the future.
Of the boards available to us, we settled on MSI B360M MORTAR TITANIUM , but in general, microATX versions can be found at a price of $65. What is good about this particular model? First, the luxurious color scheme. It also offers four DIMM slots, two M.2 Socket 3 interfaces for fast storage, heatsinks on VRM phases, and a PCIe x16 slot with a reinforced design for massive graphics cards. And this is not all its advantages, but it’s time to move on.
If you want to save on RAM, you can take two regular 8 GB sticks, for example, from Geil with a frequency of 2400 MHz, which, by simple manipulations in the BIOS, will take the 2666 MHz bar. They will cost you $95.
We still have a more expensive solution for the lazy from the Geil Super Luce RGB series. This memory immediately starts at DDR4-2666 speed thanks to the XMP profile. The heatsink takes care of a comfortable temperature… who are we kidding, looks, and the colorful LED lighting looks great against the original motherboard.
The 6 GB GeForce GTX 1060 is a perfect graphics card, which is enough for most users for Full HD. Its price is falling under pressure from competitors and the release of the GTX 16 series, so we can find the simplest model for $255.
But in games, the GPU frequency depends on the efficiency of the cooler, so paying extra for the MSI GeForce GTX 1060 Armor 6G OC looks quite reasonable. It will please its owner with 3% GPU overclocking and an excellent cooler with two Torx Fans. In games, the temperature of the GPU did not rise above 67 ° C with a critical indicator of 94°C.
The remaining components are the same for both test systems, so we will introduce them a bit later. In the meantime, let’s talk about what formed the basis of the red assembly.
The choice of processor is even wider here. For example, you can take Ryzen 5 1600 or 1600X, but they will have to be well overclocked. If you don’t want to overclock, take the Ryzen 5 2600. And for the even more lazy and wealthy, there is Ryzen 5 2600X . It can also be overclocked, but in practice the result is not very good — we have already checked it.
A boxed version of the processor with a cooler included will cost you at least $209. In return, you get 6 cores and 12 threads with a base frequency of 3.6 GHz and dynamic overclocking to 4.2 GHz. The L3 cache is up to 16 MB, and the RAM controller is guaranteed to support DDR4-2933 modules in 2-channel mode. There is no video core, so the purchase of a video card is required.
There should be no problems with the selection of the motherboard. It’s better not to look towards the AMD A320 — it’s a very budget option for 95 watt processor. There is no particular need for the top-end AMD X370 and X470, although this is a good choice. There are models on AMD B350 and AMD B450. The former may have problems with the firmware — without the new version, the Ryzen 5 2600X will not start. The same goes for the X370. Therefore, the best option is a microATX board based on the B450, which will cost you at least $67.
We got the more expensive option — MSI B450M MORTAR . It is good with four DIMM slots, two interfaces for M.2 drives, a heatsink for the VRM zone, and support for BIOS FLASHBACK + technology. With it, you can update the firmware of the board, even without installing a processor, RAM and video card. This will help you when installing next generation Ryzen processors.
Moving on. The approach to RAM is the same as in the first system — you can take two simple 8-gigabyte DDR4-2400 sticks from Geil, followed by overclocking to 2933 MHz.
Or just focus on something more expensive, for example, the DDR4-3000 Exceleram Red Kudos kit. It started without problems in 2933 mode — that is, guaranteed by AMD for this processor. But their overclocking potential has not yet been fully exploited, although we know well: the higher the frequency of RAM in a system with Ryzen, the better. Yes, and with radiators, overclocking is somehow calmer.
Well, the choice of video card fell on the 8-gigabyte Radeon RX 580, which will cost at least $210. Under the Raise the Game promotion, you can also take two hit blockbusters for free as a gift.
For the test, we were kindly provided with the model MSI Radeon RX 580 8GB MECH 2 , which is not yet in our retail. It boasts three modes of operation of the GPU and video memory. Two of them offer factory overclocking. By default, the «Gaming» profile is used with GPU overclocking up to 1380 MHz. In the «OS» mode, the memory speed also rises.
Don’t worry about overheating — the cooler with three 6mm heat pipes and two Torx Fan 2.0 fans does its job well. In the heaviest games, the temperature does not exceed 76°C.
The following components are exactly the same for both systems. Their choice is not fundamental — we just managed to get these pieces of iron, and you can choose something according to your own preference.
The SSD is the first to enter the mainstream system. Since both boards support M.2 PCIe, we decided to go with model Netac N930E with a capacity of 240 GB, which we have left from the previous assembly. Its sequential read speed exceeds 1900 MB / s, and writes — 1100 MB / s. It is not sold in domestic stores, but an equivalent option can be found at a price of $49.
For cold data, you can use a familiar HDD. For example, the series Seagate Barracuda . It is the most affordable terabyte with a minimum price tag of $38. The amount of cache memory is 64 MB and the spindle speed is 7200 rpm, but it works quietly. Speed indicators for sequential reading and writing are in the region of 150 MB / s.
The power supply was taken with a margin. The choice fell on the CORSAIR CX650 with 80 PLUS Bronze certification, resonant topology and a robust 120mm fan. In our tests, this PSU has not been used before, so at the same time we will check its operation. You can take a simpler bronze model with a price tag of $48. But we recommend avoiding frankly budget options.
No matter how hard we try with the selection of components, without Vinga you still won’t put five for the review! Therefore, building 9 became a temporary shelter for both assemblies in turn.0004 Vinga CS207B . It pleases with a nice design, a viewing window, a ventilation grill on the side panel with the possibility of installing a fan and one pre-installed 120mm turntable with LED-backlight. But the case is a matter of taste, you can take a cheaper option even for $14.
The assembly process went without a hitch.
As a result, the minimum build cost on the Intel Core i5-8400 and GeForce GTX 1066 is $774. A bundle of Ryzen 5 2600X and Radeon RX 588 will set you back $730. That is, at the start, a slight advantage for AMD. Let’s see if she can increase it or lose it in the tests.
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 vs Intel Core i5+8400: What is the difference? — Versus — Orașul Löbau
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 vs Intel Core i5+8400: What is the difference? — Versus — Orașul Lobau — document PDF
liblib. ro
What is the difference between AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and Intel Core i5+8400? Find out which one is better and their overall CPU scores.
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 vs Intel Core i5+8400: What is the difference? — Versus
What is the difference between AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and Intel Core i5+8400? Find out which one is better and their overall CPU scores.
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 vs. Intel Core i5-8400 and Core i5-8600
Again, from the review of the older Ryzen 5 2600X, we already know that the overclocked 12 Pinnacle Ridge threads are on par, or even ahead of the nominal 6 cores…
UserBenchmark: AMD Ryzen 5 2600 vs Intel Core i5-8400
Based on 1063214 user benchmarks for the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and the Intel Core i5-8400, we rank them both on effective speed and value for money against the ..
Intel Core i5 8400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 2600 — NanoReview.net
We compared the 6-core Intel Core i5 8400 (2.8 GHz) and AMD Ryzen 5 2600 (3.4 GHz) in games and benchmarks. Find out which one did the best…
Comparison Intel Core i5-8400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 2600 which is better?
We compared the specifications of Intel Core i5-8400 and AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and compiled a list of benefits and comparison table for you.
Intel Core i3-8100 vs Intel Core i5+8400: What is the difference? — Versus
What is the difference between Intel Core i3-8100 and Intel Core i5+8400? Find out which one is better and their overall CPU scores.
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 vs Intel Core i5-7600K: What is the difference? — Versus
What is the difference between AMD Ryzen 7 1700 and Intel Core i5-7600K? Find out which one is better and their overall CPU scores.
AMD Ryzen 3 1300X vs Intel Core i5-7400: What is the difference? — Versus
What is the difference between Intel Core i5-7400 and AMD Ryzen 3 1300X? Find out which one is better and their overall CPU scores.
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X vs Intel Core i7-8700K: What is the difference? — Version
What is the difference between an Intel Core i7-8700K and an AMD Ryzen 7 2700X? Find out which one is better and their overall CPU scores.
Core i5-8400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 2600 [in 15 benchmarks] — Technical City
Core i5-8400 def VS Ryzen 5 2600 OC — benchmarks in 1080p and 1440p
May 19, 2019 … Testing Intel Core i5-8400 and AMD Ryzen 5 2600 processors at 19 resolutions20 x 1080, 2560 x 1440 and fifteen games.
Intel Core i7-6700 vs Intel Core i7-7700K: What is the difference? — Versus
9736vs8045; 0.5GHz higher turbo clock speed… Intel Core i7-7700K. vs. AMD Ryzen 5 1600X … Intel BX80662I76700K 4512 Core i7 6700K .
Intel Core i3-9100F vs Intel Core i5-9400F: What is the difference? — Versus
What is the difference between Intel Core i5-9400F and Intel Core i3-9100F? Find out which one is better and their overall CPU scores.
Intel Core i5-6400 vs Intel Core i5-6402P: What is the difference? — Versus
What is the difference between Intel Core i5-6402P and Intel Core i5-6400? Find out which one is better and their overall CPU scores.
Intel Core i5-9400F vs Intel Core i7-7700K: What is the difference? — Versus
What is the difference between Intel Core i7-7700K and Intel Core i5-9400F? Find out which one is better and their overall CPU scores.
Intel Core i3-8100 vs Intel Core i5-7400: What is the difference? — Version
What is the difference between Intel Core i3-8100 and Intel Core i5-7400? Find out which one is better and their overall CPU scores.
Intel Core i5-9400F vs Intel Core i5-9600K: What is the difference? — Versus
What is the difference between Intel Core i5-9600K and Intel Core i5-9400F? Find out which one is better and their overall CPU scores.
Intel Core i7-7700HQ vs Intel Core i7-8550U: What is the difference? — Versus
What is the difference between Intel Core i7-7700HQ and Intel Core i7-8550U? Find out which one is better and their overall CPU scores.
Intel Core i7-9700K vs Intel Core i9-9900K: What is the difference? — Versus
What is the difference between Intel Core i9-9900K and Intel Core i7-9700K? Find out which one is better and their overall CPU scores.
Intel Core i5-9300H vs Intel Core i7-9750H: What is the difference? — Versus
What is the difference between Intel Core i7-9750H and Intel Core i5-9300H? Find out which one is better and their overall CPU scores.
Intel Core i5-8300H vs Intel Core i7-8750H: What is the difference? — Version
What is the difference between Intel Core i7-8750H and Intel Core i5-8300H? Find out which one is better and their overall CPU scores.
Intel Core i5-1135G7 vs Intel Core i7-8550U: What is the difference? — Versus
What is the difference between Intel Core i5-1135G7 and Intel Core i7-8550U? Find out which one is better and their overall CPU scores.
Intel Core i5-3570 vs Intel Core i5-3570K: What is the difference? — Versus
What is the difference between Intel Core i5-3570K and Intel Core i5-3570? Find out which one is better and their overall CPU scores.
Intel Core i5-8250U vs Intel Core i7-8550U: What is the difference? — Versus
What is the difference between Intel Core i7-8550U and Intel Core i5-8250U? Find out which one is better and their overall CPU scores.
Intel Core i3-7100 vs Intel Pentium G4560: What is the difference? — Versus
What is the difference between Intel Core i3-7100 and Intel Pentium G4560? Find out which one is better and their overall CPU scores.
AMD A8-7600 vs Intel Core i5-7400: What is the difference? — Version
What is the difference between an Intel Core i5-7400 and an AMD A8-7600? Find out which one is better and their overall CPU scores.
AMD Ryzen 7 4800H vs Intel Core i7-1165G7: What is the difference?
… is i7-1165G7 better than AMD Ryzen 7 4800H? 1MB more L2 cache ? 5MBvs4MB; 0.5GHz higher turbo clock speed ? 4.7GHzvs4.2GHz; 17W below TDP ? 28Wvs …
Comparison of Ryzen 5 2600 and i5 8400 — Te4h
Core i5 8400 performed very well in Far … as well as in GTA V. Ryzen 2600 vs i5 8400 …
Comparing Intel Core i5-8400 @ 2.80GHz vs Intel Core i3-8100 @ 3.60GHz vs AMD Phenom 9550 Quad-Core .
Intel Core i3-8100 vs Intel Core i5-8400 — Benchmark and comparison
Benchmark results, test and cpu comparison in Cinebench R23, Geekbench 5 and other benchmarks.
AMD Ryzen 5 1400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 3600: What is the difference? — Versus
What is the difference between AMD Ryzen 5 3600 and AMD Ryzen 5 1400? Find out which one is better and their overall CPU scores.
Intel Core i7-2600 BX80623I72600 — CPU UserBenchmarks
Core i7-2600 ; The fastest CPU (mainstream) averages a speed of 100% ; The fastest CPU (mainstream) averages a speed of 100% ; The fastest CPU (mainstream) …
Intel Core i5-8400 OEM Processor — DNS
Buy with quality assurance Intel Core i5-8400 OEM Processor in DNS online store. Favorable prices for in the network of DNS stores. Can be bought on credit or …
Intel Core i7-2600 specifications and tests
A detailed overview of the specifications and benchmarks of the Intel Core i7-2600.
Intel Core i7-2600 Benchmarks — Geekbench Browser
Benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-2600 can be found below. The data on this chart is gathered from user-submitted Geekbench 5 results from the Geekbench …
Intel Core i7-2600 Processor Review — UL Benchmarks
Intel Core i7-2600 Processor Processor review with benchmark scores. See how it compares with other popular models.
Intel Core i3-8100 vs i5-8400 — CPU-World
Feb 26 2022 … i3-8100 vs i5-8400 specifications comparison ; The number of cores/threads. 7.5.6. 4.2. 2.8. 1.4. 0.4.6. Higher is better. Operating …
UserBenchmark: Intel Core i3-8100 vs i5-8400
Based on 424336 user benchmarks for the Intel Core i3-8100 and the Core i5-8400, we rank them both on effective speed and value for money against the best …
Bloc de sistem MCS Intel Core i5-8400 2.8 GHz/8GB/120 GB SSD/1 …
Bloc de sistem MCS Intel Core i5-8400 2.8GHz/8GB/120 GB SSD/1 TB HDD/GF GTX1060 6Gb Bloc de sistem.
Intel Core i7-2600 @ 3.40GHz — Price performance comparison
This is made using thousands of PerformanceTest benchmark results and is updated daily. The first graph shows the relative performance of the CPU compared to …
Prin utilizarea site-ului nostru, sunteți de acord cu utilizarea cookie-urilor pentru o experiență mai bună.
Core i5-8400 base frequency — 2. 8 GHz. The maximum frequency in Intel Turbo Boost mode reaches 4 GHz. Please note that the Intel Core i5-8400 cooler must cool processors with a TDP of at least 65W at stock frequencies. When overclocked, the requirements increase.
With integrated Intel® UHD Graphics 630, the computer can run without a discrete graphics card because the monitor is connected to the video output on the motherboard.
Price in Russia
Do you want to buy a Core i5-8400 cheaply? Look at the list of stores that already sell the processor in your city.
Family
- Core i3-8100
- Core i3-8300
Benchmarks Intel Core i5-8400
Game speed
Performance in games and similar applications, based on our tests.
The performance of 4 cores, if any, and performance per core has the greatest impact on the result, since most games do not fully use more than 4 cores.
The speed of caches and working with RAM is also important.
Speed in office use
Performance in everyday work such as browsers and office applications.
The performance of 1 core has the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications use only one, ignoring the rest.
Similarly, many professional applications such as various CADs ignore multi-threaded performance.
Speed in heavy applications
Performance in resource-intensive tasks loading a maximum of 8 cores.
The performance of all cores and their number have the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications willingly use all the cores and increase the speed accordingly.
At the same time, certain periods of work can be demanding on the performance of one or two cores, for example, applying filters in the editor.
Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems with and without overclocking. Thus, you see the average values corresponding to the processor.
Speed of numerical operations
Simple household tasks |
||
Minimum | Average | Maximum |
78 | Memory: 90 | 95 |
Memory 94. 7 |
||
101 | 1 core: 116 | 122 |
1 core 56.4 |
||
208 | 2 cores: 229 | 242 |
2 cores 56.7 |
||
Demanding games and tasks |
||
Minimum | Average | Maximum |
363 | 4 cores: 444 | 425 |
4 cores 55. 9 |
||
483 | 8 cores: 630 | 690 |
8 cores 40.7 |
Extreme |
||
Minimum | Average | Maximum |
488 | All Cores: 636 | 694 |
All cores 11.4 |
Different tasks require different CPU strengths. A system with few fast cores and low memory latency will be fine for the vast majority of games, but will be inferior to a system with a lot of slow cores in a rendering scenario.
We believe that a minimum of 4/4 (4 physical cores and 4 threads) processor is suitable for a budget gaming PC. At the same time, some games can load it at 100%, slow down and freeze, and performing any tasks in the background will lead to a drop in FPS.
Ideally, the budget shopper should aim for a minimum of 4/8 and 6/6. A gamer with a big budget can choose between 6/12, 8/8 and 8/16. Processors with 10 and 12 cores can perform well in games with high frequency and fast memory, but are overkill for such tasks. Also, buying for the future is a dubious undertaking, since in a few years many slow cores may not provide sufficient gaming performance.
When choosing a processor to work with, consider how many cores your programs use. For example, photo and video editors can use 1-2 cores when working with filtering, and rendering or converting in the same editors already uses all threads.
Data obtained from tests of users who tested their systems both with overclocking (maximum value in the table) and without (minimum). A typical result is shown in the middle, the more filled in the color bar, the better the average result among all tested systems.
Benchmarks
Benchmarks were run on stock hardware, that is, without overclocking and with factory settings. Therefore, on overclocked systems, the points can noticeably differ upwards. Also, small performance changes may be due to the BIOS version.
Cinebench R20 SINGLE CORE
Intel Core i5-7640x
412
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G
412
Intel Core i7-4790k 9000 9000 411 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000
007
411
AMD Ryzen TR 1950X
411
Intel Core i5-8400
411
Intel Core i7-4790K
411
AMD Ryzen TR 1950X
411
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
411
Intel Core i7-5930k
409
Intel Core i3-10300T
408
Cinebench R20 Multi Core
Intel I7-10710U 9000 2364 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000
007
Intel Core i3-10300
2330
Intel Core i3-10105F
2310
Intel Core i7-5820K
2301
Intel Core i5-8400
2291
Intel Core i5-8500
2287
Intel Core i3-10100F
2284
Intel Core i3-10100
2284
Intel Core i7-7700K
2257
Intel Core i7-1165G7
2234
Cinebench R15 Single Core
AMD Ryzen 5 2600
164
AMD Ryzen 7 2700
164
Intel Xeon E3-1230 v5
163
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
163
Intel Pentium Gold G5500
163
Intel Core i5-8400
163
Intel Pentium GOLD GOLD G5500
163
AMD RYZEN 7 1800X
Intel Xeon E3-1230 V5
163 9000 9000
2211433 Intel Core i5-8259U
162
Cinebench R15 Multi Core
Intel Core i5-9400F
987
Intel Core i5-9400
987
Intel Core i7-7740X
976
Intel Core i5 -8600
959
Intel Core i5-8500
934
Intel Core i5-8400
925
Intel Xeon E5-2660 v2
916
Intel Core i3-10105F
912
Intel Xeon E3-1270 v6
905
Intel Core i7-7700
901
AMD Ryzen 5 4500U
894
Geekbench 5 Single Core
AMD Ryzen TR 2950X
1067
Intel Core i7-7700
1066
AMD Ryzen 7 2700x
1062
Intel Core i7-8700t
1061
Intel Core i7-5775c
1057
Intel Core i5-8400
1053 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000
007
Intel Core i5-8400H
1050
Intel Core i7-10710U
1049
Intel Core i3-7320
1048
AMD Ryzen TR 2920X
1042
Geekbench 5 Multi Core
Intel Core i7 -7700K
4719
Intel Core i7-7740X
4681
Intel Core i7-8850H
4644
Intel Core i7-8750H
4635
Intel Core i5-9400
4629
Intel Core i5 -8400
4608
Intel Core i7-3930K
4576
Intel Core i7-1160G7
4546
Intel Core i5-10300H
4510
Intel Core i3-10105F
4501
Intel Core i7-6700K
4459
Blender 2.
81 bmw27
Intel Core i7-3930K
427.7
Intel Core i7-8809G
415.8
Intel Core i7-6700
409.7
Intel Core i7-4790K
407
Intel Xeon E5-1650 v2
403.8
Intel Core i5-8400
400.9
Intel Core i7-7700
387.7
Intel Core i3-10105F
380
Intel Core i5-9400
378.1
Intel Core i5-8600K
374.8
AMD Ryzen 5 1600AF
372.4
Geekbench 3 Single Core
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
4039
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
4029
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
4029
Intel Core i7-7560U
4029
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
4029
Intel Core i5-8400
4020
Intel Core i7-6920HQ
4012
AMD Ryzen 3 3300U
4012
Intel Pentium Gold G5600
3994
Intel Core i3-7100
3994
Intel Core i7-5775C
3978
Geekbench 3 Multi Core
Intel Core i7-8750H
20156
Intel Core i7-4960X
20120
Intel Core i7-3970X
19425
Intel Core i7-3960X
19300
Intel Core i5-8600
19037
Intel Core i5-8400
18923
Intel Core i7-7700K
18702
Intel Xeon E5-1650 v2
18570
Intel Core i5-8500
18529
Intel Core i7-7740X
18340
Intel Core i7-6700K
17028
Cinebench R11.
5
Intel Core i7-7600U
1.88
Intel Core i7-6700T
1.87
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
1.86
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
1.86
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
1.86
Intel Core i5-8400
1.86
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
1.84
Intel Core i3-7300T
1.84
Intel Core i5-8305G
1.84
Intel Pentium G4560
1.84
Intel Core i5-8500T
1.84
Cinebench R11.5
Intel Core i7-4930K
10.83
Intel Core i7-7740X
10.73
Intel Core i5-8600
10. 23
Intel Core i7-3930k
10.16
Intel Core i7-3970x
10.12
Intel Core i5-8400 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000.96
Intel Xeon E3-1270 v6
9.94
Intel Core i7-6700K
9.92
Intel Core i7-7700
9.91
Intel Xeon E3-1245 v6
9.69
Cinebench R11.5 iGPU, OpenGL
Intel Core i7-5775C
61.7
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
61.5
Intel Core i5-5675C
58.4
Intel Core i7-9700K
55.1
Intel Core i7-8700K
53. 2
Intel Core i5-8400
52.6
Intel Core i5-8600
52.6
Intel Core i5-8600K
52.6
Intel Core i5-8600T
52.6
Intel Core i5-8500T
52.6
Intel Core i5-9600K
52.6
Passmark
AMD Ryzen 5 2500X
9517
Intel Core i5-9400
9496
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G
9372
Intel Core i3-10300
9351
Intel Core i7-4930K
9290
Intel Core i5-8400
9224
Intel Core i3-10105F
9157
Intel Xeon E5-1650 v2
9151
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
9053
Intel Core i7-6700k
8973
Intel Xeon E3-1270 V6
8949
Tests in the Games
FPS measured in popular games at Intel Core i5-8400 and compliance with systemic requirements. Please note that the official requirements of developers in games do not always match the data of real tests. Also, the result is strongly influenced by the overclocking of the system and the graphic settings in the game. We test at high settings in FullHD resolution to get numbers close to real gameplay.
The most popular config: motherboard for Intel Core i5-8400 — MSI Z370-A PRO, graphics card — Radeon R5, RAM — Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB, SSD — 860 Evo 500GB.
Characteristics
The data is not yet filled in, so the tables may lack information or omit existing functions.
Main
Manufacturer | Intel |
DescriptionInformation about the processor, taken from the official website of the manufacturer. | Intel® Core™ i5-8400 Processor (9M Cache, up to 4.00 GHz) |
ArchitectureCode name for the microarchitecture generation. | Coffee Lake |
Process The manufacturing process, measured in nanometers. The smaller the technical process, the more perfect the technology, the lower the heat dissipation and power consumption. | 14 nm |
Release dateMonth and year of the processor’s availability. | 09-2020 |
Model Official name. | i5-8400 |
Cores The number of physical cores. | 6 |
ThreadsNumber of threads. The number of logical processor cores that the operating system sees. | 6 |
Multi-Threading Technology With Intel’s Hyper-threading and AMD’s SMT technology, one physical core is recognized by the operating system as two logical cores, thereby increasing processor performance in multi-threaded applications. | Missing |
Base frequencyGuaranteed frequency of all processor cores at maximum load. Performance in single-threaded and multi-threaded applications and games depends on it. It is important to remember that speed and frequency are not directly related. For example, a new processor at a lower frequency may be faster than an old one at a higher one. | 2.8 GHz |
Turbo frequencyThe maximum frequency of one processor core in turbo mode. Manufacturers allow modern processors to independently increase the frequency of one or more cores under heavy load, due to which performance is noticeably increased. It may depend on the nature of the load, the number of loaded cores, temperature and the specified limits. Significantly affects the speed in games and applications that are demanding on the frequency of the CPU. | 4 GHz |
L3 cache size The third level cache acts as a buffer between the computer’s RAM and the processor’s level 2 cache. Used by all cores, the speed of information processing depends on the volume. | 9 MB |
Instructions | 64-bit |
Extended instruction set Allows you to speed up calculations, processing and execution of certain operations. Also, some games require instruction support. | SSE4.1/4.2, AVX2 |
Embedded Options Available Two enclosure versions. Standard and designed for mobile devices. In the second version, the processor can be soldered on the motherboard. | No |
Bus frequency The speed of communication with the system. | 8 GT/s DMI3 |
TDPThermal Design Power is an indicator that determines the heat dissipation in standard operation. The cooler or water cooling system must be rated for a larger value. Remember that with a factory bus or manual overclocking, TDP increases significantly. | 65 W |
Cooling system specifications | PCG 2015C (65W) |
Video core
Integrated graphics core Allows you to use your computer without a discrete graphics card. The monitor is connected to the video output on the motherboard. If earlier integrated graphics made it possible to simply work at a computer, today it can replace budget video accelerators and makes it possible to play most games at low settings. | Intel® UHD Graphics 630 |
GPU base clockFrequency in 2D and idle. | 350 MHz |
Maximum GPU frequencyMaximum 3D frequency. | 1050 MHz |
Supported monitorsThe maximum number of monitors that can be connected to the integrated video core at the same time. | 3 |
RAM
Maximum RAM Amount of RAM that can be installed on the motherboard with this processor. | 64 GB |
Supported type of RAM The type of RAM depends on its frequency and timings (speed), availability, price. | DDR4-2666 |
RAM Channels The multi-channel memory architecture increases data transfer speed. On desktop platforms, two-channel, three-channel and four-channel modes are available. | 2 |
PCI
PCI-E The PCI Express computer bus version. The bandwidth and power limit depend on the version. There is backward compatibility. | 3 |
PCI configuration options | Up to 1×16 or 2×8 or 1×8+2×4 |
Number of PCI lanes | 16 |
Data protection
AES-NI The AES command set extension speeds up applications that use appropriate encryption. | Yes |
Intel® Secure Key An RDRAND instruction that allows you to create a high performance random number generator. | Yes |
Design
Competitors
Please note that competitors are selected automatically based on performance in a particular task. Therefore, some may puzzle you. We are improving our selection algorithm, treat with understanding.
Compare
Intel Core i5-8400 vs AMD Ryzen TR 3960X
Intel Core i5-8400 vs AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS
Intel Core i5-8400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600U
Intel Core i5-8400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 3500
Intel Core i5-8400 vs AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
Intel Core i5-8400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 4500U
Intel Core i5-8400 — processor overview.
Tests and specifications
The Intel Core i5-8400 processor is based on 14 nm process technology and Coffee Lake architecture. The base clock is 2.80 GHz and the maximum turbo clock is 3.80 GHz. Intel Core i5-8400 contains 6 processor cores. To make the right choice for upgrading your computer, check out the detailed specifications and test results. Please check your motherboard socket compatibility before choosing.
0.0
From 0
Hitesti Score
TOP 10 processors
Most popular on the site
Intel Celeron N4020
2x 1. 10 GHz (2.80 GHz)
AMD Ryzen 5 5500U
6x 2.10 GHz (4.00 GHz) HT
Intel Celeron J4125
4x 2.00 GHz (2.70 GHz)
AMD Ryzen 3 3250U
2x 2.60 GHz (3.50 GHz) HT
AMD Ryzen 7 5700U
8x 1. 80 GHz (4.30 GHz) HT
AMD Athlon Silver 3050U
2x 2.30 GHz (3.20 GHz)
Intel Core i3-1115G4
2x 1.70 GHz (4.10 GHz) HT
Intel Core i5-1135G7
4x 2.40 GHz (4.00 GHz) HT
AMD Ryzen 5 4600G
6x 3. 70 GHz (4.20 GHz) HT
Intel Celeron N4500
2x 1.10 GHz (2.90 GHz)
Buy here:
AliExpress
General information
Base and maximum clock speed of the Intel Core i5-8400 processor, number of processor cores and threads. The more the better (marked in green).
CPU cores, base and turbo speeds
The overall performance of a processor can be easily determined based on its number of cores and threads, as well as its standard and turbo clock speeds. The more GHz, cores and L2-L3 cache a processor has, the better. Please note that high specs require a powerful cooling system and a quality chipset (check the VRM on the motherboard).
Clock frequency: | 2.80 GHz | Number of cores: | 6 | |
Turbo (1 core): | 3.80 GHz | Number of threads: | 6 | |
Hyper trading: | No. | Acceleration: | No. | |
Turbo (6 cores): | 4.00 GHz |
Internal graphics
Some manufacturers (most often Intel) supplement processors with graphics chips, this solution is especially popular in laptops, but is ineffective in workstations and gaming stations. The higher the clock speed of the video card and the more memory on board, the better.
GPU name: | Intel UHD Graphics 630 | |||
GPU frequency: | 0.35 GHz | GPU (Turbo): | 1.15 GHz | |
Generation: | 9. 5 | DirectX version: | 12 | |
Execution units: | 24 | Number of shaders: | 192 | |
Maximum memory: | 64GB | Number of monitors: | 3 | |
Technology: | 14nm | Release date: | Q4/2017 |
Hardware codec support
Here we are dealing with specifications that are used by some processor manufacturers. These figures are mostly technical and can be disregarded for comparative purposes.
h364: | Decode/Encode | |||
JPEG: | Decode/Encode | |||
h365 8bit: | Decode/Encode | |||
h365 10bit: | Decode/Encode | |||
VP8: | Decode/Encode | |||
VP9: | Decode/Encode | |||
VC-1: | Decode | |||
AVC: | Decode/Encode |
RAM and PCIe
These are the memory standards supported by processors. The higher the standard and clock frequency with the amount of RAM, the better the performance and speed of the processor. It is also worth considering the possibility of memory operation in multichannel mode.
Memory type: | DDR4-2666 | Maximum memory: | 128GB | |
Memory channels: | 2 | ECC: | No. | |
PCIe version: | 3.0 | PCIe lanes: | 16 |
Encryption
Data encryption support
AES-NI: | Yes |
Thermal management and TDP
TDP: | 65W | Maximum temperature: | — | |
Maximum TDP: | — | TDP down: | — |
Technical details
These are key parameters that will help you determine which processor is better. Pay special attention to the release date, the technological aspects of the manufacturing process (measured in nanometers) and the third level (L3) cache.
L3-Cache: | 9.00 MB | Technology: | 14nm | |
Architecture: | Coffee Lake | Virtualization: | VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d | |
Socket: | LGA 1151-2 | Release date: | Q4/2017 | |
Price: | ca. 260 $ |
Devices compatible with this processor
You probably already know which devices use processors. It can be a desktop computer or a laptop.
Used in: | Unknown |
This synthetic benchmark will help you determine the actual processing power of a single CPU core. Cinebench R11.5 is based on MAXON CINEMA 4D and uses various test scenarios
Intel Core i5-8350U
4x 1. 70 GHz (3.60 GHz) HT
Intel Core i7-6700T
4x 2.80 GHz (3.60 GHz) HT
Intel Core i5-8400
6x 2.80 GHz (3.80 GHz)
Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3
8x 2. 60 GHz (3.40 GHz) HT
Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3
8x 2.30 GHz (3.40 GHz) HT
Cinebench R11.5 performs simultaneous cross-platform tests on all processor cores. Running realistic 3D scenes, this benchmark will unleash the full potential of your single-core Intel or AMD
processor
Intel Core i7-3930k
6x 3.20 GHz (3.80 GHz) HT
Intel Core i7-3970X
6x 3. 50 GHz (4.00 GHz) HT
Intel Core i5-8400
6x 2.80 GHz (3.80 GHz)
Intel Core i5-8500B
6x 3.00 GHz (4.10 GHz)
Intel Core i5-8500
6x 3. 00 GHz (4.10 GHz)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on Cinema 4D Suite, a popular software for creating shapes and other things in 3D. The iGPU test uses the processor’s internal graphics unit to execute OpenGL commands.
Intel Core i7-9700K
8x 3.60 GHz (4.90GHz)
Intel Core i7-8700K
6x 3.70 GHz (4.70 GHz) HT
Intel Core i5-8400
6x 2. 80 GHz (3.80 GHz)
Intel Core i7-1065G7
4x 1.30 GHz (3.90 GHz) HT
Intel Core i5-6260U
2x 1.80 GHz (2.90 GHz) HT
The latter is used to create 3D models and shapes. Cinebench R15 is used to benchmark the performance of single core processors. Hyperthreading capability is not taken into account. It is an updated version of Cinebench 11.5. Like all new versions, the updated benchmark is based on Cinema 4 Suite 9 software0007
Intel Core i5-8305G
4x 2. 80 GHz (3.80 GHz) HT
Intel Core i5-8259U
4x 2.30 GHz (3.80 GHz) HT
Intel Core i5-8400
6x 2.80 GHz (3.80 GHz)
Intel Core i3-6320
2x 3. 90 GHz (No turbo) HT
Intel Core i3-8145U
2x 2.10 GHz (3.90 GHz) HT
Cinebench R15 can be used to test the performance of multi-core processors. The test produces accurate and reliable results. This benchmark is an updated version of Cinebench 11.5, which is based on Cinema 4 Suite soft.
Intel Xeon E5-2650 v2
8x 2.60 GHz (3.40 GHz) HT
Intel Core i5-8600
6x 3. 10 GHz (4.20 GHz)
Intel Core i5-8400
6x 2.80 GHz (3.80 GHz)
Intel Core i5-8500B
6x 3.00 GHz (4.10 GHz)
Intel Core i5-8500
6x 3. 00 GHz (4.10 GHz)
Cinebench R20 is based on Cinema 4 Suite. This is software used to create 3D shapes. The benchmark runs in single-core mode without considering the possibility of hyper-threading.
AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G
4x 3.70 GHz (4.20 GHz) HT
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G
4x 3.70 GHz (4.20 GHz) HT
Intel Core i5-8400
6x 2. 80 GHz (3.80 GHz)
Intel Core i7-5930K
6x 3.50 GHz (3.70 GHz) HT
Intel Core i3-10300T
4x 3.00 GHz (3.90 GHz) HT
This is a new version of the benchmark based on Cinebench R15 (both versions are based on Cinema 4, the most popular 3D modeling software). Cinebench R20 is used for benchmark tests of multi-core processor performance and hyper-threading capabilities.
Intel Core i3-10300
4x 3.70 GHz (4.40 GHz) HT
Intel Core i7-5820K
6x 3.30 GHz (3.60 GHz) HT
Intel Core i5-8400
6x 2.80 GHz (3.80 GHz)
Intel Core i5-8500B
6x 3. 00 GHz (4.10 GHz)
Intel Core i5-8500
6x 3.00 GHz (4.10 GHz)
Geekbench 3 is a benchmark for 64-bit Intel and AMD processors. It uses a new power rating system for a single processor core. This software simulates real scenarios for accurate results
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
4x 3.50 GHz (3.70 GHz) HT
AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300
4x 3. 50 GHz (3.70 GHz)
Intel Core i5-8400
6x 2.80 GHz (3.80 GHz)
Intel Core i5-7440HQ
4x 2.80 GHz (3.80 GHz)
Intel Xeon E3-1535M v5
4×2. 90 GHz (3.80 GHz) HT
Geekbench 3 supports multi-core AMD and Intel processors. Based on MAXON CINEMA 4D, it allows you to get the real comparative potential of the
processor
Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3
6x 2.40 GHz (3.20 GHz) HT
AMD Epyc 7251
8x 2.10 GHz (2.90 GHz) HT
Intel Core i5-8400
6x 2. 80 GHz (3.80 GHz)
Intel Xeon E5-1660 v2
6x 3.70 GHz (4.00 GHz) HT
Intel Core i7-7700K
4x 4.20 GHz (4.50 GHz) HT
Geekbench 5 is the latest software. Completely new algorithms provide fairly accurate test results for single-core processors.
Intel Core i7-8700T
6x 2. 40 GHz (4.00 GHz) HT
Intel Core i7-5775C
4x 3.30 GHz (3.70 GHz) HT
Intel Core i5-8400
6x 2.80 GHz (3.80 GHz)
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
6x 3. 60 GHz (4.20 GHz) HT
Intel Core i5-8400H
4x 2.50 GHz (4.20 GHz) HT
Geekbench 5 benchmark results for memory and multi-core processor performance. This takes into account the ability to hyperthreading.
Intel Core i7-8750H
6x 2.20 GHz (4.10 GHz) HT
Intel Core i5-9400
6x 2. 90 GHz (4.10 GHz)
Intel Core i5-8400
6x 2.80 GHz (3.80 GHz)
Intel Core i7-3930k
6x 3.20 GHz (3.80 GHz) HT
Intel Core i7-6700K
4x 4. 00 GHz (4.20 GHz) HT
We use the Blender benchmark to monitor CPU performance. Test results show how fast the device performs when performing multiprocessing tasks
AMD Epyc 7702
64x 2.00 GHz (3.35 GHz) HT
Intel Xeon E5-1650 v2
6x 3.50 GHz (3.90 GHz) HT
Intel Core i5-8400
6x 2. 80 GHz (3.80 GHz)
Intel Core i7-7700
4x 3.60 GHz (4.20 GHz) HT
Intel Core i5-9400
6x 2.90 GHz (4.10 GHz)
It tests all and general CPU performance (math calculations, compression and decompression speed, 2D&3D graphics tests). Please note that data may differ from actual situations.
Intel Core i5-8600
6x 3. 10 GHz (4.20 GHz)
AMD Epyc 7251
8x 2.10 GHz (2.90 GHz) HT
Intel Core i5-8400
6x 2.80 GHz (3.80 GHz)
Intel Core i5-9600T
6x 2. 30 GHz (3.90 GHz)
Intel Core i7-8700T
6x 2.40 GHz (4.00 GHz) HT
This test measures the performance of integrated graphics on Intel and AMD processors. The result is the calculated processing power in Single-Precision mode FP32
Intel Core i3-1000G4
4x 1.10 GHz (3.20 GHz) HT
AMD Ryzen 3 3200U
2x 2. 60 GHz (3.50 GHz) HT
Intel Core i5-8400
6x 2.80 GHz (3.80 GHz)
Intel Core i7-4940MX
4x 3.10 GHz (3.90 GHz) HT
Intel Core i7-4930MX
4x 3.