Xeon Max 9480 vs i5-9400F

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i5-9400F
2019
6 cores / 6 threads, 65 Watt
5.96
Xeon Max 9480
2023
56 cores / 112 threads, 350 Watt
55.03
+823%

Xeon Max 9480 outperforms Core i5-9400F by a whopping 823% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i5-9400F and Xeon Max 9480 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking109424
Place by popularity25not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.070.04
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesIntel Core i5no data
Power efficiency8.6814.88
Architecture codenameCoffee Lake-R (2018−2019)Sapphire Rapids HBM (2023)
Release date8 January 2019 (5 years ago)10 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$182$12,980

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i5-9400F has 22575% better value for money than Xeon Max 9480.

Detailed specifications

Core i5-9400F and Xeon Max 9480 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)56 (Hexapentaconta-Core)
Threads6112
Base clock speed2.9 GHz1.9 GHz
Boost clock speed4.1 GHz3.5 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier29no data
L1 cache64K (per core)80K (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)2 MB (per core)
L3 cache9 MB (shared)112.5 MB
Chip lithography14 nm10 nm
Die size149 mm24x 477 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °C64 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data

Compatibility

Information on Core i5-9400F and Xeon Max 9480 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
SocketFCLGA11514677
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt350 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-9400F and Xeon Max 9480. 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++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
TSX-+
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-

Security technologies

Core i5-9400F and Xeon Max 9480 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-+
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 Xeon Max 9480 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-9400F and Xeon Max 9480. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2666DDR5-4800
Maximum memory size128 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/sno data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-9400F and Xeon Max 9480.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes1680

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
Xeon Max 9480 55.03
+823%

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
Xeon Max 9480 87420
+823%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.96 55.03
Recency 8 January 2019 10 January 2023
Physical cores 6 56
Threads 6 112
Chip lithography 14 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 350 Watt

i5-9400F has 438.5% lower power consumption.

Xeon Max 9480, on the other hand, has a 823.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 833.3% more physical cores and 1766.7% more threads, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.

The Xeon Max 9480 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-9400F in performance tests.

Note that Core i5-9400F is a desktop processor while Xeon Max 9480 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-9400F and Xeon Max 9480, 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
Intel Xeon Max 9480
Xeon Max 9480

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 56646 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 12 votes

Rate Xeon Max 9480 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 Xeon Max 9480, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.