i9-13950HX vs i5-9400F
Aggregate performance score
Core i9-13950HX outperforms Core i5-9400F by a whopping 359% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i5-9400F and Core i9-13950HX processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1090 | 173 |
| Place by popularity | 25 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 9.65 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Core i5 | Intel Raptor Lake-HX |
| Power efficiency | 8.68 | 47.08 |
| Architecture codename | Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) | Raptor Lake-HX (2023) |
| Release date | 7 January 2019 (5 years ago) | 4 January 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $182 | $590 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core i5-9400F and Core i9-13950HX basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 6 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 2.9 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.1 GHz | 5.5 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 3.0 | no data |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 29 | no data |
| L1 cache | 385 KB | 80K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1.5 MB | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 9 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 149 mm2 | 257 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 72 °C | 72 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on Core i5-9400F and Core i9-13950HX compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA1151 | FCBGA1964 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 55 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-9400F and Core i9-13950HX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| SIPP | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Core i5-9400F and Core i9-13950HX technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | + | + |
| MPX | + | - |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| SGX | Yes with Intel® ME | no data |
| OS Guard | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-9400F and Core i9-13950HX are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-9400F and Core i9-13950HX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2666 | DDR4, DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 128 GB | 192 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel® UHD Graphics for 13th Gen Intel® Processors |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.65 GHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 32 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i5-9400F and Core i9-13950HX integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 4 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Core i5-9400F and Core i9-13950HX integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096 x 2160 @ 60Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 5120 x 3200 @ 120Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Core i5-9400F and Core i9-13950HX integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-9400F and Core i9-13950HX.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 and 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 20 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
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.
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.
Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core
Blender(-)
Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core
7-Zip Single
7-Zip
WebXPRT 3
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.19 | 28.40 |
| Recency | 7 January 2019 | 4 January 2023 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 24 |
| Threads | 6 | 32 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 55 Watt |
i9-13950HX has a 358.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 300% more physical cores and 433.3% more threads, and 18.2% lower power consumption.
The Core i9-13950HX is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-9400F in performance tests.
Note that Core i5-9400F is a desktop processor while Core i9-13950HX is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-9400F and Core i9-13950HX, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
