| | | | | | |

Ryzen 9 3900X vs Core i5-10400F


Description
The 3900X is based on Zen 2 architecture while the i5-10400F is based on Comet Lake.

Using the multithread performance as a reference, the 3900X gets a score of 756.3 k points while the i5-10400F gets 370 k points.

Summarizing, the 3900X is 2 times faster than the i5-10400F. To get a proper comparison between both models, take a look to the data shown below.

Specs
CPUID
870f10
a0653
Core
Matisse
Comet Lake-S
Architecture
Base frecuency
3.8 GHz
2.9 GHz
Boost frecuency
4.6 GHz
4.3 GHz
Socket
AM4
LGA 1200
Cores/Threads
12/24
6/12
TDP
105 W
65 W
Cache L1 (d+i)
12x32+12x32 kB
6x32+6x32 kB
Cache L2
12x512 kB
6x256 kB
Cache L3
4x16384 kB
12288 kB
Date
July 2019
April 2020
Mean monothread perf.
72.51k points
68.14k points
Mean multithread perf.
756.3k points
369.97k points

Non-optimized benchmark
The benchmark in Mode 0 (FPU) measures cpu performance with non-optimized software. It uses the basic µinstructions from the i386 architecture with the i387 floating point unit. This mode is compatible with all CPUs so it's practical to compare very different CPUs
Monothread
3900X
i5-10400F
Test#1 (Integers)
4.46k
4.3k (x0.96)
Test#2 (FP)
18.46k
16.56k (x0.9)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
8.05k
5.25k (x0.65)
Test#1 (Memory)
23.71k
12.61k (x0.53)
TOTAL
54.68k
38.72k (x0.71)

Multithread

3900X

i5-10400F
Test#1 (Integers)
52.65k
18.1k (x0.34)
Test#2 (FP)
265.41k
79.16k (x0.3)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
140.78k
26.75k (x0.19)
Test#1 (Memory)
46.91k
13.81k (x0.29)
TOTAL
505.76k
137.82k (x0.27)

AVX2 optimized benchmark
The benchmark in mode III (AVX2), like AVX1, is optimized to used 256 bits registers beside the second version of the Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX). The first AVX2 compatible CPU was released in 2013.
Monothread
3900X
i5-10400F
Test#1 (Integers)
16.73k
26.28k (x1.57)
Test#2 (FP)
24.74k
23.38k (x0.95)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
8.82k
5.52k (x0.63)
Test#1 (Memory)
22.22k
12.96k (x0.58)
TOTAL
72.51k
68.14k (x0.94)

Multithread

3900X

i5-10400F
Test#1 (Integers)
248.24k
163.67k (x0.66)
Test#2 (FP)
309.66k
159.74k (x0.52)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
140.01k
39k (x0.28)
Test#1 (Memory)
58.39k
7.56k (x0.13)
TOTAL
756.3k
369.97k (x0.49)

Performance/W
3900X
i5-10400F
Test#1 (Integers)
2364 points/W
2518 points/W
Test#2 (FP)
2949 points/W
2457 points/W
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
1333 points/W
600 points/W
Test#1 (Memory)
556 points/W
116 points/W
TOTAL
7203 points/W
5692 points/W

Performance/GHz
3900X
i5-10400F
Test#1 (Integers)
3638 points/GHz
6112 points/GHz
Test#2 (FP)
5377 points/GHz
5438 points/GHz
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
1917 points/GHz
1283 points/GHz
Test#1 (Memory)
4831 points/GHz
3014 points/GHz
TOTAL
15763 points/GHz
15847 points/GHz

Monothread performance graph
Monothread performance graphics gives the performance vs time. They are useful to measure the time it takes to the CPU to reach the maximum performance.

Usually, CPU's performance will be steady during these tests but if it has a slow frequency strategy, the first samples will show a lower score.


Test#1 (Integers) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#2 (FP) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#3 (Generic, ZIP) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#1 (Memory) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com

Multithread performance graph
Multithread graphs measure the performance against a heavy load during certain time.

If CPU's TDP doesn't limit the frequency and the machine is properly cooled, performance should remain steady vs time. Otherwise, the performance score will oscillate or decrease over time.


Test#1 (Integers) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#2 (FP) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#3 (Generic, ZIP) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#1 (Memory) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com

Hardlimit Benchmark Central - Ver. 3.11.4