i9-10900E vs Ryzen 5 8400F
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 5 8400F outperforms Core i9-10900E by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 5 8400F and Core i9-10900E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 461 | 621 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 59.85 | 12.18 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 21.98 | 17.85 |
| Architecture codename | Phoenix (2023−2024) | Comet Lake (2020) |
| Release date | 1 April 2024 (less than a year ago) | 30 April 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $170 | $488 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen 5 8400F has 391% better value for money than i9-10900E.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 5 8400F and Core i9-10900E 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 | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 10 (Deca-Core) |
| Threads | 12 | 20 |
| Base clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.7 GHz | 4.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 178 mm2 | 206 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 25,000 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 5 8400F and Core i9-10900E 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 | AM5 | 1200 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 8400F and Core i9-10900E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
Ryzen 5 8400F and Core i9-10900E technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 8400F and Core i9-10900E are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 8400F and Core i9-10900E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR4 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | Intel UHD Graphics 630 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 8400F and Core i9-10900E.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 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.
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 | 15.10 | 12.26 |
| Recency | 1 April 2024 | 30 April 2020 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 10 |
| Threads | 12 | 20 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 14 nm |
Ryzen 5 8400F has a 23.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
i9-10900E, on the other hand, has 66.7% more physical cores and 66.7% more threads.
The Ryzen 5 8400F is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i9-10900E in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 8400F and Core i9-10900E, 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.
