Core i5-9400F vs Celeron N2930

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron N2930
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 7 Watt
0.66
Core i5-9400F
2019
6 cores / 6 threads, 65 Watt
6.12
+827%

Core i5-9400F outperforms Celeron N2930 by a whopping 827% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron N2930 and Core i5-9400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking26451021
Place by popularitynot in top-10029
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data16.79
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel CeleronIntel Core i5
Architecture codenameBay Trail-M (2013−2014)Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)
Release date23 February 2014 (10 years ago)8 January 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$182
Current price$820 $138 (0.8x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron N2930 and Core i5-9400F basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores4 (Quad-Core)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads46
Base clock speed1.83 GHz2.9 GHz
Boost clock speed2.16 GHz4.1 GHz
L1 cache56K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)256K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB9 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm14 nm
Die sizeno data149 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data72 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on Celeron N2930 and Core i5-9400F compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11
SocketFCBGA1170FCLGA1151
Power consumption (TDP)7.5 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2930 and Core i5-9400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI-+
AVXno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology-2.0
Hyper-Threading Technology--
TSXno data-
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoringno data+
SIPPno data-
Smart Connect+no data
StatusLaunchedDiscontinued
RST-no data

Security technologies

Celeron N2930 and Core i5-9400F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDB++
Secure Key++
MPXno data+
Identity Protection-+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® ME
OS Guardno data+
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2930 and Core i5-9400F are enumerated here.

VT-d-+
VT-x++
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N2930 and Core i5-9400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-2666
Maximum memory size8 GB128 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidthno data41.6 GB/s
ECC memory supportno data-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Seriesno data
Quick Sync Video+no data
Graphics max frequency854 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2930 and Core i5-9400F integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2930 and Core i5-9400F.

PCIe version2.03.0
PCI Express lanes416
USB revision3.0 and 2.0no data
Total number of SATA ports2no data
Number of USB ports5no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Celeron N2930 0.66
i5-9400F 6.12
+827%

Core i5-9400F outperforms Celeron N2930 by 827% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

Celeron N2930 1018
i5-9400F 9470
+830%

Core i5-9400F outperforms Celeron N2930 by 830% in Passmark.

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

Celeron N2930 158
i5-9400F 1381
+774%

Core i5-9400F outperforms Celeron N2930 by 774% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

Celeron N2930 471
i5-9400F 4832
+926%

Core i5-9400F outperforms Celeron N2930 by 926% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

Celeron N2930 1132
i5-9400F 6490
+474%

Core i5-9400F outperforms Celeron N2930 by 474% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

Celeron N2930 3880
i5-9400F 31523
+712%

Core i5-9400F outperforms Celeron N2930 by 712% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

Celeron N2930 27.25
i5-9400F 6.76
+303%

Celeron N2930 outperforms Core i5-9400F by 303% in wPrime 32.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

Celeron N2930 2
i5-9400F 11
+618%

Core i5-9400F outperforms Celeron N2930 by 618% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

Celeron N2930 129
i5-9400F 984
+663%

Core i5-9400F outperforms Celeron N2930 by 663% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

Celeron N2930 35
i5-9400F 173
+394%

Core i5-9400F outperforms Celeron N2930 by 394% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

Celeron N2930 0.41
i5-9400F 1.95
+376%

Core i5-9400F outperforms Celeron N2930 by 376% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Celeron N2930 0.2
i5-9400F 5.2
+2067%

Core i5-9400F outperforms Celeron N2930 by 2067% in TrueCrypt AES.

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Celeron N2930 1181
i5-9400F 5794
+391%

Core i5-9400F outperforms Celeron N2930 by 391% in WinRAR 4.0.

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Celeron N2930 9
i5-9400F 64
+588%

Core i5-9400F outperforms Celeron N2930 by 588% in x264 encoding pass 2.

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Celeron N2930 47
i5-9400F 234
+398%

Core i5-9400F outperforms Celeron N2930 by 398% in x264 encoding pass 1.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.66 6.12
Recency 23 February 2014 8 January 2019
Physical cores 4 6
Threads 4 6
Chip lithography 22 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 65 Watt

The Core i5-9400F is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2930 in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron N2930 is a notebook processor while Core i5-9400F is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2930 and Core i5-9400F, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron N2930
Celeron N2930
Intel Core i5-9400F
Core i5-9400F

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 56 votes

Rate Celeron N2930 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.9 56179 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron N2930 or Core i5-9400F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.