Ryzen 5 8400F vs UHD Graphics 630

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

Comparing UHD Graphics 630 and Ryzen 5 8400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance rankingnot rated400
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data67.64
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel UHD Graphicsno data
Architecture codenameGen9.5Phoenix
Release dateno data1 April 2024 (less than a year ago)
Current price$284 $190

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

UHD Graphics 630 and Ryzen 5 8400F 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 coresno data6 (Hexa-Core)
Threadsno data12
Base clock speedno data4.2 GHz
Boost clock speed0.35 GHz4.7 GHz
L1 cacheno data64 KB (per core)
L2 cacheno data1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm0.014 μm 1.4e-5 mm4 nm
Die sizeno data178 mm2
Number of transistorsno data25,000 million
64 bit support-+
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplierNoYes

Compatibility

Information on UHD Graphics 630 and Ryzen 5 8400F 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 configurationno data1
Socketno dataAM5
Power consumption (TDP)no data65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by UHD Graphics 630 and Ryzen 5 8400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NIno data+
AVXno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by UHD Graphics 630 and Ryzen 5 8400F are enumerated here.

AMD-Vno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by UHD Graphics 630 and Ryzen 5 8400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR5
Maximum memory size65,536 MB 67,108,864 KB 68,719,476,736 B 0.0625 TiB 64 GBno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by UHD Graphics 630 and Ryzen 5 8400F.

PCIe versionno data4.0
PCI Express lanesno data20

Pros & cons summary


Chip lithography 14 nm 4 nm

We couldn't decide between UHD Graphics 630 and Ryzen 5 8400F. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that UHD Graphics 630 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 5 8400F is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between UHD Graphics 630 and Ryzen 5 8400F, 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.


Intel UHD Graphics 630
UHD Graphics 630
AMD Ryzen 5 8400F
Ryzen 5 8400F

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.


2.9 74 votes

Rate UHD Graphics 630 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 37 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 8400F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about UHD Graphics 630 or Ryzen 5 8400F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.