i5-9400F vs Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX outperforms Core i5-9400F by a whopping 756% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX and Core i5-9400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 33 | 1108 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 24 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 16.73 | 9.43 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | Intel Core i5 |
| Power efficiency | 13.81 | 8.68 |
| Architecture codename | Storm Peak (2023) | Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) |
| Release date | 19 October 2023 (1 year ago) | 8 January 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,649 | $182 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX has 77% better value for money than i5-9400F.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX 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 | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 48 | 6 |
| Base clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 5.3 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 | 64 KB (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 128 MB (shared) | 9 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 4x 71 mm2 | 149 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 72 °C |
| Number of transistors | 26,280 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX 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 | sTR5 | FCLGA1151 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX and Core i5-9400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 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 | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX 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 Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX 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 Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX and Core i5-9400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | 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 | N/A | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX and Core i5-9400F.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 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 | 51.03 | 5.96 |
| Recency | 19 October 2023 | 8 January 2019 |
| Physical cores | 24 | 6 |
| Threads | 48 | 6 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 65 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX has a 756.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.
i5-9400F, on the other hand, has 438.5% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-9400F in performance tests.
Be aware that Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX is a server/workstation processor while Core i5-9400F is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX 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.
