OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD Ryzen 5 7400F review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£110PassMark multi-core score:25562N. of physical cores:6CPU boost clock speed:4.7 GHzCPU socket:AM5TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD Ryzen 5 7400F Review: Compare 74 technical specifications, 3 expert and video reviews and 1 best-of list to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen 5 7400F
7.7/10

Overall score

Score
7.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 86% of models
Score components

40%

7.7

Technical score

25%

7.5

Reviews score

25%

7.7

List score

10%

8.5

Sentiment score

▲Better than 86% of processors
8.4

Value for money

Value for money
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 96% of models
Score components

70%

7.7

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

★Better than 96%
7.7

Technical score

Technical score
7.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 80% of models
Score components

60%

7.8

Performance

18%

7.1

Architecture

10%

8.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

9.0

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 80%
7.5

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 52% of models

80%

7.5

Average grade

20%

7.4

Popularity

Grades by review (3)
3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 52%
7.7

List score

List score
7.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (1)
List score: in 1 of 78 lists (1%)
▲Better than 89%
  • amd-ryzen-5-7400f
amd-ryzen-5-7400f
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F

Based on 0 · 3

Reviewers mostly agree it offers strong value for the money, with few complaints about its price.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F

Based on 21 owners sharing their experience in online comments

62%positive38%mixed0%negative

Owners value its low cost, gaming performance and tuning headroom, while high load temperatures can demand careful cooling.

What owners dislike

  • Under long all-core stress tests, temperatures can reach about 95°C with a basic cooler, so a stronger tower or 120mm fan is needed.6
  • Owners who stayed on the factory paste under the lid saw higher temperatures, so replacing that paste with better compound is advised.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 5 7400F

Technical score
Technical score
7.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 80% of models
Score components:

60%

7.8

Performance

18%

7.1

Architecture

10%

8.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

9.0

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

7.7
Reviews score
7.5
List score
7.7
Value for money
Value for money
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 96% of models
Score components:

70%

7.7

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

8.4
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
AM5
This processor uses the AM5 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 95% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
Chipset
X870E, X870, B850, B840, X670E, X670, B650E, B650, A620
This processor supports X870E, X870, B850, B840, X670E, X670, B650E, B650, A620 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 92% of processors and equal to that of 3.3% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 69.3% of processors and equal to that of 7.1% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
6
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 6 CPU cores, which is more than 47.7% of processors and equal to 13.4% of processors.
CPU threads
12
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 12 CPU threads, which is more than 53% of processors and equal to 14.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.7 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.7 GHz which is higher than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 4% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
6x 3.7 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 6x3.7 GHz which is higher than that of 70.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
25,562
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 25,562 in PassMark, which is higher than 80.2% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
5 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 5 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 83.5% of processors and equal to that of 3.2% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 5 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 5 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 83.1% of processors and equal to that of 3.2% of processors.
L3 cache
32 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 32 MB which is larger than that of 89% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
L2 cache
6 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 6 MB which is larger than that of 65.6% of processors and equal to that of 3.9% of processors.
L1 cache
384 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 384 KB which is larger than that of 44% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR5, which is newer than that of 64.2% of processors and equal to that of 12.8% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
5,200 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 5,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 70.6% of processors and equal to 6.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-5200 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-5200 MHz, which is higher than that of 71% of processors and equal to 5.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

AMD Ryzen 5 7400F vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.35x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (12,228 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    12,228 vs 5,209
  • 2.23x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (25,562 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    25,562 vs 11,469
  • 69.6% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,603 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,603 vs 1,535
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raphael vs Kaby Lake).
    Raphael vs Kaby Lake
  • 43.7% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,677 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,677 vs 2,558
  • 12 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (28 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    24 usable lanes
    28 vs 16
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5 vs 3
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 11.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.5/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 52% of models

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.5 vs 6.7
  • 15.2% better value for money
    AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has better value for money than the average processor (8.39 vs 7.3).
    8.39 vs 7.29
  • 18.1% higher sentiment score
    8.5 vs 7.2
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM5 vs FP5).
    AM5 vs FP5
  • 5 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    January 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • 2.35x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (12,228 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    12,228 vs 5,209
  • 2.23x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (25,562 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    25,562 vs 11,469
  • 69.6% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,603 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,603 vs 1,535
  • 43.7% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,677 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,677 vs 2,558
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 2 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    6 vs 4
  • 4 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    12 vs 8
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x3.7 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    6x3.7 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 6.8% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raphael vs Kaby Lake).
    Raphael vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.88x more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (5.3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    5.33 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 58.3% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (5 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    5 nm vs 12 nm
  • 3.56x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (32 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    32 MB vs 9 MB
  • 59.9% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (71 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    71 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 5 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 5 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 2x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    6 MB vs 3 MB
  • 12 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (28 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    24 usable lanes
    28 vs 16
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5 vs 3
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 77.4% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (83.2 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    83.2 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • 62.5% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (5,200 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    5,200 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-5200 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-5,200 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
22/03/2025
Hands-on review · temperatures, gaming, 7500F comparison
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is a decent budget chip, but the 7500F is the better buy if the price is close.
7.0
Toasty Bros
≈ estimated
19/02/2025
Benchmark comparison · gaming and CPU tests vs 7500F
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is good at 1440p and a fair buy if cheaper, but the 7500F remains the overall better CPU.
Not graded
Not graded
Overview video

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 5 7400F

  • Affordable entry point into the modern AM5 platform and Zen 4 architecture
  • Respectable 6-core/12-thread performance for budget gaming builds
  • Includes a large 32MB L3 cache, which benefits gaming performance
  • Low power consumption with a 65W TDP
  • Unlocked multiplier allows for easy overclocking
  • Supports modern standards like PCIe 5.0 and DDR5 memory

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 5 7400F

  • Uses thermal paste instead of solder under the heat spreader, leading to higher operating temperatures
  • Hits maximum temperature (95°C) easily under heavy loads even with liquid cooling
  • No integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display
  • Inferior clock speeds (4.7 GHz boost) compared to the slightly more expensive Ryzen 5 7500F
  • Market value is questionable if the price is too close to the better-performing 7500F

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is a budget-oriented Zen 4 processor for the AM5 socket, featuring 6 cores and 12 threads with a 3.7 GHz base clock and a max boost clock of 4.7 GHz. Built on a 5nm process, it includes 32MB of L3 cache, a 65W TDP, and supports PCIe 5.0 and DDR5-5200 memory. Main pros include its affordability as an entry point to the AM5 platform, an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, and performance comparable to the 7500F in many gaming scenarios. However, notable cons include the lack of integrated graphics (requiring a dedicated GPU), higher operating temperatures due to the use of thermal paste instead of solder under the heat spreader, and limited global retail availability.

Compare AMD Ryzen 5 7400F with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and other processors

No results found