Core i5-11400F vs Ryzen Threadripper 2920X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X
2018
12 cores / 24 threads, 180 Watt
16.49
+49.4%

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X outperforms Core i5-11400F by a considerable 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 2920X and Core i5-11400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking366656
Place by popularitynot in top-10033
Cost-effectiveness evaluation43.6564.58
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Ryzen Threadripperno data
Architecture codenameZEN+ (2018−2020)Rocket Lake (2021)
Release date3 October 2018 (5 years ago)16 March 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$649$157
Current price$190 (0.3x MSRP)$121 (0.8x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i5-11400F has 48% better value for money than Ryzen Threadripper 2920X.

Detailed specifications

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X and Core i5-11400F 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 cores12 (Dodeca-Core)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads2412
Base clock speed3.5 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed4.3 GHz4.4 GHz
L1 cache96K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)256K (per core)
L3 cache32 MB12 MB (shared)
Chip lithography12 nm14 nm
Die size213 mm2276 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data72 °C
Number of transistors19,200 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplierYesNo

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen Threadripper 2920X and Core i5-11400F 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)1
SocketSP3r2FCLGA1200
Power consumption (TDP)180 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 2920X and Core i5-11400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
FMAno data+
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
TSXno data+
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoringno data+
SIPPno data-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-
Statusno dataDiscontinued

Security technologies

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X and Core i5-11400F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
Identity Protectionno data+
SGXno data-
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 2920X and Core i5-11400F are enumerated here.

AMD-V+no data
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 2920X and Core i5-11400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Quad-channelDDR4
Maximum memory size2 TiB128 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidth93.867 GB/s50 GB/s
ECC memory supportno data-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper 2920X and Core i5-11400F.

PCIe versionno data4.0
PCI Express lanesno data20

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.

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 16.49
+49.4%
i5-11400F 11.04

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X outperforms Core i5-11400F by 49% based on our aggregate 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%

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 25509
+49.4%
i5-11400F 17070

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X outperforms Core i5-11400F by 49% 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%

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 1266
i5-11400F 1962
+55%

Core i5-11400F outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 2920X by 55% 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%

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 7313
i5-11400F 7595
+3.9%

Core i5-11400F outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 2920X by 4% 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%

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 5407
i5-11400F 6210
+14.9%

Core i5-11400F outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 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%

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 46015
+4.1%
i5-11400F 44220

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X outperforms Core i5-11400F by 4% 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%

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 10948
i5-11400F 13359
+22%

Core i5-11400F outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 2920X by 22% 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%

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 3.03
+35%
i5-11400F 4.09

Core i5-11400F outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 2920X by 35% 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%

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 18
i5-11400F 18
+0.6%

Core i5-11400F outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 2920X by 1% 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%

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 2628
+67%
i5-11400F 1574

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X outperforms Core i5-11400F by 67% 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%

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 178
i5-11400F 210
+18%

Core i5-11400F outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 2920X by 18% 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%

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 1.96
i5-11400F 2.23
+13.8%

Core i5-11400F outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 2920X by 14% 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%

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 16.2
+86.2%
i5-11400F 8.7

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X outperforms Core i5-11400F by 86% 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%

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 4669
i5-11400F 7147
+53.1%

Core i5-11400F outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 2920X by 53% in WinRAR 4.0.

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%

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 131
+43.2%
i5-11400F 92

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X outperforms Core i5-11400F by 43% in x264 encoding pass 2.

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%

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 209
i5-11400F 258
+23.7%

Core i5-11400F outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 2920X by 24% in x264 encoding pass 1.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 16.49 11.04
Recency 3 October 2018 16 March 2021
Physical cores 12 6
Threads 24 12
Cost $649 $157
Chip lithography 12 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 180 Watt 65 Watt

The Ryzen Threadripper 2920X is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-11400F in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 2920X and Core i5-11400F, 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.


AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X
Ryzen Threadripper 2920X
Intel Core i5-11400F
Core i5-11400F

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.


4.4 68 votes

Rate Ryzen Threadripper 2920X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 8044 votes

Rate Core i5-11400F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen Threadripper 2920X or Core i5-11400F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.