Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U vs i5-2400
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U outperforms Core i5-2400 by a whopping 226% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i5-2400 and Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1758 | 938 |
| Place by popularity | 39 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.86 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core i5 (Desktop) | AMD Renoir (Ryzen 4000 APU) |
| Power efficiency | 2.43 | 50.22 |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Renoir-U PRO (Zen 2) (2020) |
| Release date | 9 January 2011 (13 years ago) | 7 May 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $60 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core i5-2400 and Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 21 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 6144 KB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Die size | 216 mm2 | 156 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 73 °C | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,160 million | 9,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Core i5-2400 and Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U 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 |
| Socket | LGA1155 | FP6 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-2400 and Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX | PRO, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| FDI | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
Security technologies
Core i5-2400 and Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-2400 and Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U 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 i5-2400 and Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21 GB/s | 68.27 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics 2000 | AMD Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) ( - 1500 MHz) |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.1 GHz | no data |
| InTru 3D | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i5-2400 and Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-2400 and Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | no data |
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.
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.
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.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.44 | 7.96 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.55 | 6.04 |
| Recency | 9 January 2011 | 7 May 2020 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 6 |
| Threads | 4 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 15 Watt |
Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U has a 226.2% higher aggregate performance score, 998.2% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 9 years, 50% more physical cores and 200% more threads, a 357.1% more advanced lithography process, and 533.3% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-2400 in performance tests.
Note that Core i5-2400 is a desktop processor while Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-2400 and Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U, 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.
