i5-9400F vs Ryzen 5 1600

VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 5 1600
2017
6 cores / 12 threads, 65 Watt
7.73
+29.7%
Core i5-9400F
2019
6 cores / 6 threads, 65 Watt
5.96

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Core i5-9400F by a substantial 30% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 5 1600 and Core i5-9400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking9631108
Place by popularity5524
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.589.41
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Ryzen 5Intel Core i5
Power efficiency11.258.67
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2017−2020)Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)
Release date11 April 2017 (7 years ago)8 January 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$219$182

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i5-9400F has 105% better value for money than Ryzen 5 1600.

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 5 1600 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads126
Base clock speed3.2 GHz2.9 GHz
Boost clock speed3.6 GHz4.1 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 3.0
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/s4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplier3229
L1 cache96K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)256K (per core)
L3 cache16 MB (shared)9 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Die size192 mm2149 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data72 °C
Number of transistors4,800 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 5 1600 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketAM4FCLGA1151
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Core i5-9400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMTIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+

Security technologies

Ryzen 5 1600 and Core i5-9400F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
MPX-+
Identity Protection-+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® ME
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Core i5-9400F are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Core i5-9400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR4-2666
Maximum memory size64 GB128 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/s42.671 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Core i5-9400F.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes2016

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 7.73
+29.7%
i5-9400F 5.96

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 12277
+29.7%
i5-9400F 9468

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 1084
i5-9400F 1404
+29.5%

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 4643
i5-9400F 4908
+5.7%

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 4538
i5-9400F 6490
+43%

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 25970
i5-9400F 31523
+21.4%

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 6.85
i5-9400F 6.76
+1.3%

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 13
+11.5%
i5-9400F 11

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

Ryzen 5 1600 1129
+14.7%
i5-9400F 984

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 147
i5-9400F 173
+17.7%

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 1.65
i5-9400F 1.95
+18.2%

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 6.4
+23.1%
i5-9400F 5.2

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 3430
i5-9400F 5794
+68.9%

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.  

Ryzen 5 1600 69
+7.3%
i5-9400F 64

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.  

Ryzen 5 1600 177
i5-9400F 234
+32.2%

Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core

Ryzen 5 1600 5425
i5-9400F 5715
+5.4%

Blender(-)

Ryzen 5 1600 404
i5-9400F 469
+15.9%

Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core

Ryzen 5 1600 950
i5-9400F 1139
+19.9%

7-Zip Single

Ryzen 5 1600 3834
i5-9400F 4678
+22%

7-Zip

Ryzen 5 1600 30144
+17.6%
i5-9400F 25639

WebXPRT 3

Ryzen 5 1600 180
i5-9400F 211
+17.2%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.73 5.96
Recency 11 April 2017 8 January 2019
Threads 12 6

Ryzen 5 1600 has a 29.7% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more threads.

i5-9400F, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year.

The Ryzen 5 1600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-9400F in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 1600 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.


AMD Ryzen 5 1600
Ryzen 5 1600
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 5827 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 1600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.9 56769 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 Ryzen 5 1600 or Core i5-9400F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.