vacancies advertise contact news tip The Vault
facebook rss twitter

Intel Core i5-10400 vs i5-9400F benchmark comparison leaked

by Mark Tyson on 13 May 2020, 12:11

Tags: Intel (NASDAQ:INTC)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qaelf2

Add to My Vault: x

HEXUS reported upon Intel's official launch / reveal of the 10th Gen Core (Comet Lake-S) processors for mainstream desktop at the end of April. At the time of writing Intel is still not permitting reviews to be published, but some leaked tests have been published nevertheless.

A ChipHell China forums user called 'Trailing to Fantasy City' (Google translate applied to name) claims to have tested one of the new Core i5 processors, which in the 10th gen desktop lineup from Intel are all hyperthreading enabled parts. Wouldn't it be interesting to see how one of these new Core i5 processors compares to the equivalent previous gen model? 'Trailing to Fantasy City' says he has done just that, and some benchmark comparisons and screenshots are provided.

First of all it is worth checking over and repeating the hardware tech specs which are officially available via the Intel Ark. I've summarised the lengthy key features and differences in a condensed table below:

 

Intel Core i5-9400F

Intel Core i5-10400

Lithography

14nm

14nm

Cores / Threads

6 / 6

6 / 12

Base Clock

2.9GHz

2.9GHz

Boost Clock

4.1GHz

4.3GHz

Smart Cache

9MB

12MB

iGPU

None

UHD 630

TDP

65W

65W

 

'Trailing to Fantasy City' reportedly used a system based upon an MSI MAG Z490 Tomahawk motherboard, 16GB of DDR4 RAM, and an Nvidia GeForce RTX 2070 to run through a series of benchmarks such as CPU-Z Bench, Cinebench and Super Pi. Single and multi-thread comparisons were made too, where available. Unfortunately, it isn't clear what motherboard was used to support the older LGA1151 processor.

Pondering over the results, it isn't very surprising to see that the Intel Core i5-10400 was only marginally faster than its 9th gen predecessor in single threaded tasks. These results shows that the Comet Lake-S Core i5 processor is about 4 to 8 per cent faster in single threaded tasks. We know the Core i5-10400 has a 200MHz faster boost clock and more cache, and a couple of other tweaks might have been made to achieve this gain.

Predictably, the added hyperthreading makes a big difference in programs that make use of heavily threaded operations. Testing in apps like Cinebench show the new processor can render scenes at between 35 and 45 per cent faster.

Please take these reported results with a pinch of salt, although they do fall pretty closely in line with expectations for the inter-generational changes applied.

Source: ChipHell forums via VideoCardz.



HEXUS Forums :: 30 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
All those figures can be explained away with the addition of hyper threading and an extended boost to sustain clocks.

Alas.
Tabbykatze
All those figures can be explained away with the addition of hyper threading and an extended boost to sustain clocks.

Alas.

You mean they've had to stop sandbagging the mid range? Diddums. At least I suppose they had something left in the tank to give. I wonder if it's actually less effort / expense to leave hyperthreading on?

What we need now is Intel to keep AMD honest. Of all maddening things. Sounds like the tech press were almost entirely informed about the mobo backwards compatibility issues two weeks prior to the announcement that X4xx series and below wouldn't support newer AM4 chips. I thoroughly expect that when my CPU is EOL, it'll be worth upgrading the mobo and so I see it all as a one off expense. However, if I'd bought an X4 series mobo and a cheap AM4 CPU to get me going, with the intention of upgrading based off AMD's marketing, I'd be utterly furious. B series, not so much as part of the price of an expensive mobo is the support but AMD near enough promised ongoing support with the AM4 socket and even called Intel “evil” for redoing the socket every time. Buying X series boards is expensive partly to guarantee that kind of support from the mobo manufacturer.

Sounds like Intel's argument about “we want it to just work” and guaranteeing mobo compatibility, without sending out loaner CPUs and so on, has some merit to it.
philehidiot
You mean they've had to stop sandbagging the mid range? Diddums. At least I suppose they had something left in the tank to give. I wonder if it's actually less effort / expense to leave hyperthreading on?

What we need now is Intel to keep AMD honest. Of all maddening things. Sounds like the tech press were almost entirely informed about the mobo backwards compatibility issues two weeks prior to the announcement that X4xx series and below wouldn't support newer AM4 chips. I thoroughly expect that when my CPU is EOL, it'll be worth upgrading the mobo and so I see it all as a one off expense. However, if I'd bought an X4 series mobo and a cheap AM4 CPU to get me going, with the intention of upgrading based off AMD's marketing, I'd be utterly furious. B series, not so much as part of the price of an expensive mobo is the support but AMD near enough promised ongoing support with the AM4 socket and even called Intel “evil” for redoing the socket every time. Buying X series boards is expensive partly to guarantee that kind of support from the mobo manufacturer.

Sounds like Intel's argument about “we want it to just work” and guaranteeing mobo compatibility, without sending out loaner CPUs and so on, has some merit to it.

AMD probably were trying to pad out it's worse gaming performance,by promoting its longer socket lifespan and chance to slot in a faster future CPU,etc over Intel by using cheaper B450 motherboards. If people knew you needed an X570 motherboard for this,then it would have increased the cost of an AMD setup,and put Intel on a more equal footing.
I take the point about customers sort of expecting AMD CPUs to work on previous gen motherboards, but comparing AMD to Intel's “redoing the socket every time” is a big leap.

AMD offer pretty great upgrade potential across the generations of Ryzen/ThreadRipper CPUs so far launched. But there was always going to come a point where that continuity would have to give way as the CPUs continue to evolve and motherboard chipsets/circuitry have to leap forward so as not to hamstring AMD's progress and the B-Series chipsets are exactly where you'd expect that to be felt first.
Seems AMDs chipsets support 2 generations, this is twice the support of intel.

Seem AMD have done wonders for everybody, intel have had to stop hobbling the budget chips now, happy days.