i5-9400F vs E2-3000M
Primary details
Comparing E2-3000M and Core i5-9400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | 1073 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 38 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 10.11 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD E-Series | Intel Core i5 |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) |
| Release date | 15 June 2011 (13 years ago) | 7 January 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $182 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
E2-3000M and Core i5-9400F 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 6 |
| Base clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 4.1 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 29 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 385 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1.5 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 9 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 226 mm2 | 149 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 72 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1000 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on E2-3000M and Core i5-9400F 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FS1 | FCLGA1151 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E2-3000M and Core i5-9400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | SSE4.1/2, 3DNow, Radeon HD 6380G | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
E2-3000M and Core i5-9400F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| MPX | - | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E2-3000M and Core i5-9400F 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 E2-3000M and Core i5-9400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-2666 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 42.671 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 6380G | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E2-3000M and Core i5-9400F.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 15 June 2011 | 7 January 2019 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 6 |
| Threads | 2 | 6 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
E2-3000M has 85.7% lower power consumption.
i5-9400F, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between E2-3000M and Core i5-9400F. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that E2-3000M is a notebook processor while Core i5-9400F is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between E2-3000M and Core i5-9400F, 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.
