Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G vs i5-10400F

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i5-10400F
2020
6 cores / 12 threads, 65 Watt
8.20
+43.4%
Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G
2019
4 cores / 8 threads, 65 Watt
5.72

Core i5-10400F outperforms Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G by a considerable 43% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking9151125
Place by popularity12not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation22.94no data
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Seriesno dataAMD Ryzen 5
Power efficiency11.948.33
Architecture codenameComet Lake (2020)Zen+ (2018−2019)
Release date30 April 2020 (4 years ago)30 September 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$155no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads128
Base clock speed2.9 GHz3.7 GHz
Boost clock speed4.3 GHz4.2 GHz
Bus typeno dataPCIe 3.0
Bus rate8 GT/sno data
Multiplierno data37
L1 cache64K (per core)384 KB
L2 cache256K (per core)2 MB
L3 cache12 MB (shared)4 MB
Chip lithography14 nm12 nm
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data4940 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++

Compatibility

Information on Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G 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 configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCLGA1200Socket AM4
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0-no data

Security technologies

Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
Identity Protection+-
SGXYes with Intel® MEno data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G 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 Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR4-2933
Maximum memory size128 GB64 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth41.6 GB/s46.933 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon RX Vega 11

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes1620

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.

i5-10400F 8.20
+43.4%
Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G 5.72

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.

i5-10400F 13029
+43.3%
Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G 9092

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.20 5.72
Recency 30 April 2020 30 September 2019
Physical cores 6 4
Threads 12 8
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm

i5-10400F has a 43.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 months, and 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads.

Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G, on the other hand, has a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Core i5-10400F is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-10400F and Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G, 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 Core i5-10400F
Core i5-10400F
AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G
Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G

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.


3.8 13574 votes

Rate Core i5-10400F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 102 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i5-10400F or Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.