Ryzen 9 7940HS vs Core i5-9400F

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

Core i5-9400F
2019
6 cores / 6 threads
6.12

Ryzen 9 7940HS outperforms Core i5-9400F by 222% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i5-9400F and Ryzen 9 7940HS processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking996256
Place by popularity26not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation17.38no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesIntel Core i5no data
Architecture codenameCoffee Lake-R (2018−2019)Phoenix-HS (Zen 4)
Release date8 January 2019 (5 years ago)January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$182no data
Current price$138 (0.8x MSRP)no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core i5-9400F and Ryzen 9 7940HS 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 GHz4 GHz
Boost clock speed4.1 GHz5.2 GHz
L1 cache64K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache9 MB (shared)16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm4 nm
Die size149 mm2178 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data25,000 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on Core i5-9400F and Ryzen 9 7940HS 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
SocketFCLGA1151FP8
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-9400F and Ryzen 9 7940HS. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2DDR5-5600/LPDDR5x-7500 RAM (incl. ECC), PCIe 4, Ryzen AI, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME
AES-NI++
FMAno data+
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
TSX-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+no data
SIPP-no data
StatusDiscontinuedno data

Security technologies

Core i5-9400F and Ryzen 9 7940HS technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

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

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-9400F and Ryzen 9 7940HS are enumerated here.

AMD-Vno data+
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 9 7940HS. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2666DDR5
Maximum memory size128 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth41.6 GB/sno data
ECC memory support-no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon 780M

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-9400F and Ryzen 9 7940HS.

PCIe version3.04.0
PCI Express lanes1620

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 6.12
Ryzen 9 7940HS 19.73
+222%

Ryzen 9 7940HS outperforms Core i5-9400F by 222% based on our aggregated 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%

i5-9400F 9468
Ryzen 9 7940HS 30521
+222%

Ryzen 9 7940HS outperforms Core i5-9400F by 222% 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%

i5-9400F 1379
Ryzen 9 7940HS 2465
+78.8%

Ryzen 9 7940HS outperforms Core i5-9400F by 79% 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%

i5-9400F 4826
Ryzen 9 7940HS 11563
+140%

Ryzen 9 7940HS outperforms Core i5-9400F by 140% 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%

i5-9400F 6490
Ryzen 9 7940HS 7881
+21.4%

Ryzen 9 7940HS outperforms Core i5-9400F by 21% 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%

i5-9400F 31523
Ryzen 9 7940HS 48914
+55.2%

Ryzen 9 7940HS outperforms Core i5-9400F by 55% 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%

i5-9400F 6.76
Ryzen 9 7940HS 2.67
+153%

Core i5-9400F outperforms Ryzen 9 7940HS by 153% 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%

i5-9400F 11
Ryzen 9 7940HS 30
+169%

Ryzen 9 7940HS outperforms Core i5-9400F by 169% 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%

i5-9400F 984
Ryzen 9 7940HS 2663
+171%

Ryzen 9 7940HS outperforms Core i5-9400F by 171% 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%

i5-9400F 173
Ryzen 9 7940HS 284
+64.2%

Ryzen 9 7940HS outperforms Core i5-9400F by 64% 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%

i5-9400F 1.95
Ryzen 9 7940HS 3.4
+74.4%

Ryzen 9 7940HS outperforms Core i5-9400F by 74% 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%

i5-9400F 5.2
Ryzen 9 7940HS 15
+188%

Ryzen 9 7940HS outperforms Core i5-9400F by 188% 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%

i5-9400F 5794
Ryzen 9 7940HS 7465
+28.8%

Ryzen 9 7940HS outperforms Core i5-9400F by 29% in WinRAR 4.0.

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%

i5-9400F 234
Ryzen 9 7940HS 299
+27.6%

Ryzen 9 7940HS outperforms Core i5-9400F by 28% in x264 encoding pass 1.

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%

i5-9400F 64
Ryzen 9 7940HS 146
+128%

Ryzen 9 7940HS outperforms Core i5-9400F by 128% in x264 encoding pass 2.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.12 19.73
Physical cores 6 8
Threads 6 16
Chip lithography 14 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 35 Watt

The Ryzen 9 7940HS is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-9400F in performance tests.

Note that Core i5-9400F is a desktop processor while Ryzen 9 7940HS is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-9400F and Ryzen 9 7940HS, 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 9 7940HS
Ryzen 9 7940HS

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 55994 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 769 votes

Rate Ryzen 9 7940HS 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 9 7940HS, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.