i5-9400F vs Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
2018
16 cores / 32 threads, 180 Watt
19.09
+211%

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X outperforms i5-9400F by a whopping 211% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Core i5-9400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking3061073
Place by popularitynot in top-10038
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.9210.05
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Ryzen ThreadripperIntel Core i5
Architecture codenameZEN+ (2018−2019)Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)
Release date13 August 2018 (6 years ago)8 January 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$899$182

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i5-9400F has 13% better value for money than Ryzen Threadripper 2950X.

Detailed specifications

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 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 cores16 (Hexadeca-Core)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads326
Base clock speed3.5 GHz2.9 GHz
Boost clock speed4.4 GHz4.1 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 3.0
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/s4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplier3529
L1 cache96K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)256K (per core)
L3 cache32 MB9 MB (shared)
Chip lithography12 nm14 nm
Die size213 mm2149 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 multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketSocket TR4FCLGA1151
Power consumption (TDP)180 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Core i5-9400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

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

Security technologies

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Core i5-9400F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
MPX-+
Identity Protection-+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® ME
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Core i5-9400F are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Core i5-9400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Quad-channelDDR4-2666
Maximum memory size2 TiB128 GB
Max memory channels42
Maximum memory bandwidth93.867 GB/s42.671 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Core i5-9400F.

PCIe versionno data3.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

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 2950X 19.09
+211%
i5-9400F 6.14

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.

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 29442
+211%
i5-9400F 9466

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.

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 1255
i5-9400F 1402
+11.7%

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.

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 8470
+73.4%
i5-9400F 4886

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.

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 4.19
+61.3%
i5-9400F 6.76

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.

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 27
+140%
i5-9400F 11

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 3110
+216%
i5-9400F 984

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.

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 176
+1.7%
i5-9400F 173

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.

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 1.9
i5-9400F 1.95
+2.6%

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.

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 19.5
+275%
i5-9400F 5.2

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.

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 4548
i5-9400F 5794
+27.4%

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.  

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 145
+126%
i5-9400F 64

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.  

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 202
i5-9400F 234
+15.7%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.09 6.14
Recency 13 August 2018 8 January 2019
Physical cores 16 6
Threads 32 6
Chip lithography 12 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 180 Watt 65 Watt

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X has a 210.9% higher aggregate performance score, 166.7% more physical cores and 433.3% more threads, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

i5-9400F, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 months, and 176.9% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-9400F in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Core i5-9400F, 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 2950X
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
Intel Core i5-9400F
Core i5-9400F

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.


4.3 55 votes

Rate Ryzen Threadripper 2950X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.9 56426 votes

Rate Core i5-9400F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen Threadripper 2950X or Core i5-9400F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.