EPYC 7252 vs i5-9400F

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i5-9400F
2019
6 cores / 6 threads, 65 Watt
5.96
EPYC 7252
2019
8 cores / 16 threads, 120 Watt
12.22
+105%

EPYC 7252 outperforms Core i5-9400F by a whopping 105% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i5-9400F and EPYC 7252 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1096626
Place by popularity25not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.0510.58
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesIntel Core i5AMD EPYC
Power efficiency8.689.64
Architecture codenameCoffee Lake-R (2018−2019)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release date8 January 2019 (5 years ago)7 August 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$182$475

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7252 has 17% better value for money than i5-9400F.

Detailed specifications

Core i5-9400F and EPYC 7252 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads616
Base clock speed2.9 GHz2.8 GHz
Boost clock speed4.1 GHz3.2 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier2931
L1 cache64K (per core)96K (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache9 MB (shared)64 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die size149 mm2192 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Core i5-9400F and EPYC 7252 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)2 (Multiprocessor)
SocketFCLGA1151TR4
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt120 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-9400F and EPYC 7252. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Core i5-9400F and EPYC 7252 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
MPX+-
Identity Protection+-
SGXYes with Intel® MEno data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-9400F and EPYC 7252 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-9400F and EPYC 7252. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2666DDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory size128 GB4 TiB
Max memory channels28
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/s204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-9400F and EPYC 7252.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes16no 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.

i5-9400F 5.96
EPYC 7252 12.22
+105%

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.

i5-9400F 9470
EPYC 7252 19411
+105%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.96 12.22
Recency 8 January 2019 7 August 2019
Physical cores 6 8
Threads 6 16
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 120 Watt

i5-9400F has 84.6% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7252, on the other hand, has a 105% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 months, 33.3% more physical cores and 166.7% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7252 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-9400F in performance tests.

Note that Core i5-9400F is a desktop processor while EPYC 7252 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-9400F and EPYC 7252, 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 Core i5-9400F
Core i5-9400F
AMD EPYC 7252
EPYC 7252

Similar processor comparisons

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

Community ratings

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


4.9 56651 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 28 votes

Rate EPYC 7252 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i5-9400F or EPYC 7252, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.