Ryzen 3 2200GE vs i5-9400F

Aggregate performance score

Core i5-9400F
2019
6 cores / 6 threads, 65 Watt
6.07
+58.5%
Ryzen 3 2200GE
2018
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
3.83

Core i5-9400F outperforms Ryzen 3 2200GE by an impressive 58% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i5-9400F and Ryzen 3 2200GE processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking10941472
Place by popularity25not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.11no data
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Core i5AMD Ryzen 3
Power efficiency8.6710.16
Architecture codenameCoffee Lake-R (2018−2019)Raven Ridge (2017−2018)
Release date7 January 2019 (5 years ago)19 April 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$182no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core i5-9400F and Ryzen 3 2200GE 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads64
Base clock speed2.9 GHz3.2 GHz
Boost clock speed4.1 GHz3.2 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier2932
L1 cache385 KB384 KB
L2 cache1.5 MB2 MB
L3 cache9 MB (shared)4 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Die size149 mm2209.78 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data4950 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+-
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Core i5-9400F and Ryzen 3 2200GE 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)1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCLGA1151AM4
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-9400F and Ryzen 3 2200GE. 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++
FMA-+
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 Ryzen 3 2200GE 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 Ryzen 3 2200GE 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 Ryzen 3 2200GE. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2666DDR4-2933
Maximum memory size128 GB64 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/s46.933 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-9400F and Ryzen 3 2200GE.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes1612

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 6.07
+58.5%
Ryzen 3 2200GE 3.83

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 9469
+58.8%
Ryzen 3 2200GE 5963

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.07 3.83
Recency 7 January 2019 19 April 2018
Physical cores 6 4
Threads 6 4
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 35 Watt

i5-9400F has a 58.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 months, and 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads.

Ryzen 3 2200GE, on the other hand, has 85.7% lower power consumption.

The Core i5-9400F is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 3 2200GE in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-9400F and Ryzen 3 2200GE, 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 Ryzen 3 2200GE
Ryzen 3 2200GE

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 56613 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 36 votes

Rate Ryzen 3 2200GE 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 Ryzen 3 2200GE, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.