Ryzen 5 8400F vs Apple M4 Pro (14 cores)
Aggregate performance score
Apple M4 Pro (14 cores) outperforms Ryzen 5 8400F by an impressive 78% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Apple M4 Pro (14 cores) and Ryzen 5 8400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 180 | 460 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 64.03 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Apple M4 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 63.95 | 22.06 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Phoenix (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 30 October 2024 (less than a year ago) | 1 April 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $170 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Apple M4 Pro (14 cores) 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 cores | 14 (Tetradeca-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 14 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 4.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.5 GHz | 4.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | no data | 178 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 25,000 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Apple M4 Pro (14 cores) 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 configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | AM5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Apple M4 Pro (14 cores) and Ryzen 5 8400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Apple M4 Pro (14 cores) and Ryzen 5 8400F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Apple M4 Pro (14 cores) and Ryzen 5 8400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Apple M4 20-core GPU | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Apple M4 Pro (14 cores) and Ryzen 5 8400F.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 27.17 | 15.23 |
| Recency | 30 October 2024 | 1 April 2024 |
| Physical cores | 14 | 6 |
| Threads | 14 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 65 Watt |
Apple M4 Pro (14 cores) has a 78.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 months, 133.3% more physical cores and 16.7% more threads, a 33.3% more advanced lithography process, and 62.5% lower power consumption.
The Apple M4 Pro (14 cores) is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 8400F in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Apple M4 Pro (14 cores) and Ryzen 5 8400F, 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.
