| | | | | | |

Core i5-10400F vs Ryzen 9 3900X


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

Using the multithread performance as a reference, the i5-10400F gets a score of 370 k points while the 3900X gets 756.3 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
a0653
870f10
Core
Comet Lake-S
Matisse
Architecture
Base frecuency
2.9 GHz
3.8 GHz
Boost frecuency
4.3 GHz
4.6 GHz
Socket
LGA 1200
AM4
Cores/Threads
6/12
12/24
TDP
65 W
105 W
Cache L1 (d+i)
6x32+6x32 kB
12x32+12x32 kB
Cache L2
6x256 kB
12x512 kB
Cache L3
12288 kB
4x16384 kB
Date
April 2020
July 2019
Mean monothread perf.
68.14k points
72.51k points
Mean multithread perf.
369.97k points
756.3k 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
i5-10400F
3900X
Test#1 (Integers)
4.3k
4.46k (x1.04)
Test#2 (FP)
16.56k
18.46k (x1.11)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
5.25k
8.05k (x1.53)
Test#1 (Memory)
12.61k
23.71k (x1.88)
TOTAL
38.72k
54.68k (x1.41)

Multithread

i5-10400F

3900X
Test#1 (Integers)
18.1k
52.65k (x2.91)
Test#2 (FP)
79.16k
265.41k (x3.35)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
26.75k
140.78k (x5.26)
Test#1 (Memory)
13.81k
46.91k (x3.4)
TOTAL
137.82k
505.76k (x3.67)

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
i5-10400F
3900X
Test#1 (Integers)
26.28k
16.73k (x0.64)
Test#2 (FP)
23.38k
24.74k (x1.06)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
5.52k
8.82k (x1.6)
Test#1 (Memory)
12.96k
22.22k (x1.71)
TOTAL
68.14k
72.51k (x1.06)

Multithread

i5-10400F

3900X
Test#1 (Integers)
163.67k
248.24k (x1.52)
Test#2 (FP)
159.74k
309.66k (x1.94)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
39k
140.01k (x3.59)
Test#1 (Memory)
7.56k
58.39k (x7.72)
TOTAL
369.97k
756.3k (x2.04)

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

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