Core i5-9400F vs Core i9-7900X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i9-7900X
2017
10 cores / 20 threads, 140 Watt
13.65
+123%

i9-7900X outperforms i5-9400F by a whopping 123% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i9-7900X and Core i5-9400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking5081021
Place by popularitynot in top-10029
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.7417.63
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesCore i9 (Desktop)Intel Core i5
Architecture codenameSkylake-X (2018)Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)
Release date26 June 2017 (7 years ago)8 January 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999$182
Current price$864 (0.9x MSRP)$127 (0.7x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i5-9400F has 272% better value for money than i9-7900X.

Detailed specifications

Core i9-7900X 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 cores10 (Deca-Core)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads206
Base clock speed3.3 GHz2.9 GHz
Boost clock speed4.5 GHz4.1 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)256K (per core)
L3 cache14 MB (shared)9 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Die sizeno data149 mm2
Maximum core temperature95 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °C72 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplierYesNo

Compatibility

Information on Core i9-7900X 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 configuration11
SocketSocket R4FCLGA1151
Power consumption (TDP)140 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i9-7900X and Core i5-9400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology2.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
TSX+-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoringno data+
SIPPno data-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0+no data
StatusDiscontinuedDiscontinued

Security technologies

Core i9-7900X and Core i5-9400F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDB++
Secure Keyno data+
MPXno data+
Identity Protectionno data+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® ME
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i9-7900X and Core i5-9400F are enumerated here.

AMD-V+no data
VT-d++
VT-x++
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i9-7900X and Core i5-9400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR4-2666
Maximum memory size128 GB128 GB
Max memory channels42
Maximum memory bandwidth85 GB/s41.6 GB/s
ECC memory support--

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/Ano data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i9-7900X and Core i5-9400F.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes4416

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.

i9-7900X 13.65
+123%
i5-9400F 6.12

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-9400F by 123% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

i9-7900X 21107
+123%
i5-9400F 9471

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-9400F by 123% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

i9-7900X 1432
+3.6%
i5-9400F 1382

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-9400F by 4% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

i9-7900X 8896
+84%
i5-9400F 4835

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-9400F by 84% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

i9-7900X 7287
+12.3%
i5-9400F 6490

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-9400F by 12% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

i9-7900X 49738
+57.8%
i5-9400F 31523

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-9400F by 58% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

i9-7900X 2.91
+132%
i5-9400F 6.76

Core i5-9400F outperforms Core i9-7900X by 132% in wPrime 32.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

i9-7900X 24
+112%
i5-9400F 11

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-9400F by 112% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

i9-7900X 2148
+118%
i5-9400F 984

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-9400F by 118% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

i9-7900X 193
+11.4%
i5-9400F 173

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-9400F by 11% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

i9-7900X 2.2
+12.8%
i5-9400F 1.95

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-9400F by 13% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

i9-7900X 12.1
+133%
i5-9400F 5.2

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-9400F by 133% in TrueCrypt AES.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

i9-7900X 5918
+2.1%
i5-9400F 5794

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-9400F by 2% in WinRAR 4.0.

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

i9-7900X 121
+89.1%
i5-9400F 64

Core i9-7900X outperforms Core i5-9400F by 89% in x264 encoding pass 2.

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

i9-7900X 217
i5-9400F 234
+7.8%

Core i5-9400F outperforms Core i9-7900X by 8% in x264 encoding pass 1.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.65 6.12
Recency 26 June 2017 8 January 2019
Physical cores 10 6
Threads 20 6
Cost $999 $182
Power consumption (TDP) 140 Watt 65 Watt

The Core i9-7900X is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-9400F in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i9-7900X and Core i5-9400F, 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 i9-7900X
Core i9-7900X
Intel Core i5-9400F
Core i5-9400F

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.


4.1 196 votes

Rate Core i9-7900X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.9 56204 votes

Rate Core i5-9400F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i9-7900X or Core i5-9400F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.