Core i5-12400F vs Core i9-7900X

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

Core i9-7900X
2017
10 cores / 20 threads
13.69
+8.2%

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-12400F by a small 8% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i9-7900X and Core i5-12400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking488545
Place by popularitynot in top-1004
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.1957.33
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesCore i9 (Desktop)no data
Architecture codenameSkylake-X (2018)Alder Lake-S (2022)
Release date26 June 2017 (6 years ago)4 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999no data
Current price$540 (0.5x MSRP)$168

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i5-12400F has 600% better value for money than i9-7900X.

Detailed specifications

Core i9-7900X and Core i5-12400F 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 cores10 (Deca-Core)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads2012
Base clock speed3.3 GHz2.5 GHz
Boost clock speed4.5 GHz4.4 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)80K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1.25 MB (per core)
L3 cache14 MB (shared)18 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nmIntel 7 nm
Die sizeno data163 mm2
Maximum core temperature95 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplierYesNo

Compatibility

Information on Core i9-7900X and Core i5-12400F 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
SocketSocket R4FCLGA1700
Power consumption (TDP)140 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i9-7900X and Core i5-12400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology2.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
TSX++
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoringno data+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0+-
StatusDiscontinuedLaunched

Security technologies

Core i9-7900X and Core i5-12400F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDB++
Secure Keyno data+
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i9-7900X and Core i5-12400F are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i9-7900X and Core i5-12400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size128 GB128 GB
Max memory channels42
Maximum memory bandwidth85 GB/s76.8 GB/s
ECC memory support-no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/Ano data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i9-7900X and Core i5-12400F.

PCIe version3.05.0 and 4.0
PCI Express lanes4420

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.

i9-7900X 13.69
+8.2%
i5-12400F 12.65

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-12400F by 8% 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%

i9-7900X 21175
+8.2%
i5-12400F 19567

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-12400F by 8% 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%

i9-7900X 1431
i5-12400F 2195
+53.4%

Core i5-12400F outperforms Core i9-7900X by 53% 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%

i9-7900X 8876
i5-12400F 8937
+0.7%

Core i5-12400F outperforms Core i9-7900X by 1% 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%

i9-7900X 7287
i5-12400F 8389
+15.1%

Core i5-12400F outperforms Core i9-7900X by 15% 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%

i9-7900X 49738
+22.2%
i5-12400F 40690

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-12400F by 22% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

i9-7900X 12678
+6.6%
i5-12400F 11892

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-12400F by 7% in 3DMark06 CPU.

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%

i9-7900X 2.91
+40.2%
i5-12400F 4.08

Core i5-12400F outperforms Core i9-7900X by 40% 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%

i9-7900X 24
+17.1%
i5-12400F 20

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-12400F by 17% 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%

i9-7900X 2148
+22.1%
i5-12400F 1759

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-12400F by 22% 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%

i9-7900X 193
i5-12400F 244
+26.6%

Core i5-12400F outperforms Core i9-7900X by 27% 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%

i9-7900X 2.2
i5-12400F 2.95
+34.1%

Core i5-12400F outperforms Core i9-7900X by 34% 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%

i9-7900X 12.1
+30.1%
i5-12400F 9.3

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-12400F by 30% 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%

i9-7900X 5918
i5-12400F 7816
+32.1%

Core i5-12400F outperforms Core i9-7900X by 32% 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%

i9-7900X 217
i5-12400F 253
+16.4%

Core i5-12400F outperforms Core i9-7900X by 16% 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%

i9-7900X 121
+19.4%
i5-12400F 101

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-12400F by 19% in x264 encoding pass 2.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.69 12.65
Recency 26 June 2017 4 January 2022
Physical cores 10 6
Threads 20 12
Power consumption (TDP) 140 Watt 65 Watt

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core i9-7900X and Core i5-12400F.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i9-7900X and Core i5-12400F, 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 i9-7900X
Core i9-7900X
Intel Core i5-12400F
Core i5-12400F

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.


4.1 193 votes

Rate Core i9-7900X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 10729 votes

Rate Core i5-12400F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i9-7900X or Core i5-12400F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.