facebook rss twitter

Review: Intel Core i5-9400

by Tarinder Sandhu on 23 April 2019, 14:00

Tags: Intel (NASDAQ:INTC)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qad6wg

Add to My Vault: x

Conclusion

...it's really hard to ignore the sheer horsepower deficit that becomes absolutely relevant when spending the thick end of two hundred quid.

Intel has made meaningful performance strides with its mainstream LGA1151 9th Gen processors but bountiful gains are limited to the Core i9-9900K and 9900KF processors sporting eight cores and 16 threads.

The latest-generation Core i7 and Core i5 chips ultimately suffer from a lack of hyperthreading, limiting their performance in heavy-load tasks that rival AMD excels in with its Ryzen processors.

This core/thread choice is what hurts the i5-9400 processor, priced at around £180 and offering the same 6C6T design as 2017's i5-8400. It's not a bad chip, of course, yet the very minor spec. uptick over its direct predecessor leaves it wanting when the going gets tough.

Though still faster than AMD for light-load applications and lower-res gaming, it's really hard to ignore the sheer horsepower deficit that becomes absolutely relevant when spending the thick end of two hundred quid. And the decision to prohibit overclocking does it no favours, either.

Our takeaway is that this chip makes a lot more sense if priced at £140 or so. Any higher and it runs into the core-and-thread Ryzen ambush.

Bottom line: the Intel Core i5-9400 is a decent-enough chip in its own right, but as soon as you see what's available from the competition, it feels pricey and underpowered.

The Good
 
The Bad
Excellent IPC
Energy efficient
Wide choice of supporting boards
 
Feels expensive
No overclocking potential
Very minor improvement over 8400


HEXUS.where2buy*

TBC.

HEXUS.right2reply

At HEXUS, we invite the companies whose products we test to comment on our articles. If any company representatives for the products reviewed choose to respond, we'll publish their commentary here verbatim.



*UK-based HEXUS community members are eligible for free delivery and priority customer service through the SCAN.care@HEXUS forum.



HEXUS Forums :: 18 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Interesting but not surprising results. If you're purely gaming then Intel is a lot better because of its single core performance is a lot stronger. But in other workloads the Ryzen either matches it or beats it.

I'm waiting to see how Zen 2 will be able to compete with Intel in terms of single core perf but it probably still won't match it but hopefully should get a lot closer.
Part of the Spectre fixes was cutting HT as it was one of the main vectors. It will take till 2020 for all the fixes to be pushed to hardware with Intel chips. Thus why Coffee Lake and beyond will not have HT.
AlvieM
Interesting but not surprising results. If you're purely gaming then Intel is a lot better because of its single core performance is a lot stronger. But in other workloads the Ryzen either matches it or beats it.

A lot stronger? The results show 168 vs 153 fps in F1, under 10% difference and staying well withing the comfortable range of a variable sync display. Not what I would call “A lot”, and that's assuming lightly threaded games which not all of them are.

The only big difference in there is the PiFast results which are utterly meaningless because there isn't any other workload that I have ever come across that is like it.

Edit: I like how the first section is titled “Conclusion”, good for confusing people who just skip to the end :D
DanceswithUnix
A lot stronger? The results show 168 vs 153 fps in F1, under 10% difference and staying well withing the comfortable range of a variable sync display. Not what I would call “A lot”, and that's assuming lightly threaded games which not all of them are.

The only big difference in there is the PiFast results which are utterly meaningless because there isn't any other workload that I have ever come across that is like it.

Edit: I like how the first section is titled “Conclusion”, good for confusing people who just skip to the end :D

I guess “a lot stronger” is an exaggeration but it is still significant in my opinion.
I'd love to see a Real World benchmark, with the gamer's reality: Discord open and voice chat on, 2 or 3 chrome tabs running, Steam, keyboard and mouse software loaded in the systray, and eventually streaming to Twitch.

Its true that poorly optimised games will favour less threads, but with the Real World setup you'd be hammering the CPU with a load of different apps… its not just one game anymore.

That would be a very interesting test to see.