Ryzen 5 8400F vs i7-6950X
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 5 8400F outperforms Core i7-6950X by a substantial 38% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i7-6950X and Ryzen 5 8400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 709 | 459 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.82 | 59.85 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Core i7 (Desktop) | no data |
| Power efficiency | 7.38 | 21.98 |
| Architecture codename | Broadwell-E (2016) | Phoenix (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 31 May 2016 (8 years ago) | 1 April 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,723 | $170 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen 5 8400F has 7199% better value for money than i7-6950X.
Detailed specifications
Core i7-6950X and Ryzen 5 8400F 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 | 10 (Deca-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 20 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 4.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | 9.6 GT/s / QPI | no data |
| L1 cache | 32K (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 25 MB (shared) | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 178 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 72 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,800 million | 25,000 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on Core i7-6950X and Ryzen 5 8400F 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 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA2011 | AM5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-6950X and Ryzen 5 8400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Smart Response | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Core i7-6950X and Ryzen 5 8400F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-6950X and Ryzen 5 8400F 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 i7-6950X and Ryzen 5 8400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 128 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 4 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-6950X and Ryzen 5 8400F.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.92 | 15.10 |
| Recency | 31 May 2016 | 1 April 2024 |
| Physical cores | 10 | 6 |
| Threads | 20 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 65 Watt |
i7-6950X has 66.7% more physical cores and 66.7% more threads.
Ryzen 5 8400F, on the other hand, has a 38.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 115.4% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen 5 8400F is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i7-6950X in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-6950X and Ryzen 5 8400F, 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.
