OVERALL

ALTERNATIVES

SPECS

VS AVERAGE

REVIEWS

AMD Ryzen 5 8400F review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£95PassMark multi-core score:24479N. of physical cores:6CPU boost clock speed:4.7 GHzCPU socket:AM5TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD Ryzen 5 8400F Review: Compare 74 technical specifications, 12 expert and video reviews and 2 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen 5 8400F

7.9/10

★Better than 92% of processors

8.5

★Better than 97%

7.6

▲Better than 79%

7.8

▲Better than 61%

8.1

★Better than 94%

6.4
Gaming
Gaming
6.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Measures single-core benchmark performance, peak boost clock speeds, and fast L3 cache sizing critical for high frame rates.
When it matters
When you want to play demanding mobile games, 3D titles, or run graphics-intensive apps smoothly.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
30.0%
7.6
PassMark single-core score
25.0%
7.9
Geekbench 6 single-core score
20.0%
7.1
CPU boost clock speed
17.0%
2.5
L3 cache
8.0%
3.6
N. of physical cores
6.7
Video editing
Video editing
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Assesses multi-core benchmark throughput, total physical core and thread count, and cache bandwidth for rapid video rendering.
When it matters
When evaluating how effectively this processors meets your specific video editing needs.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
45.0%
9.5
Geekbench 6 multi-core score
20.0%
3.6
N. of physical cores
20.0%
6.6
CPU threads
15.0%
2.5
L3 cache

Where to buy

*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

Best rankings

What reviewers say about the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F

Based on 1 · 10

Cheap and affordable to build around, but gaming results split opinion and the small L3 cache is a common complaint.

Praised

Mixed views

Criticised

Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F

Based on 105 owners sharing their experience in online comments

71%positive15%mixed14%negative

Owners mostly praise affordable gaming performance and upgrade potential, while heat and setup problems are the main frustrations.

What owners like

Plays most games at high frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, with CS2 and Warzone reaching 200 to 400 fps, though heavy maps can dip.42
Pairs well with mid-range GPUs such as the RTX 4060, 3060 Ti and RX 6600, and is often sold cheaply enough to make a budget build worthwhile.36
Works as a cheap starting point on AM5, with the option to upgrade the CPU later without changing the motherboard.13
Overclocks well: many owners run about 200 MHz higher or undervolt with curve optimizer, reaching around 4.9 to 5.3 GHz all-core, and it also runs RAM at high speeds.10
Benchmarks come out strong for the price, often matching or beating the Ryzen 5 5600X and 3700X in multi-core and Passmark tests.9
Runs cool and quiet in many builds, especially with a better cooler, undervolting, or a delid with liquid metal.8
Feels like a big step up from older processors such as the i5-4790K, FX-8350 and i5-3470.3
Uses little power, which keeps the rest of the build cool and quiet and lets an existing cooler and power supply be reused.3

What owners dislike

Gets hot in games and stress tests, often reaching 80 to 90 °C, especially with the stock cooler or a small case.10
Only good value when bought cheaply5
Some owners report boot failures and no display when XMP is enabled, mainly on certain MSI B650 boards.4
Supports only 8 PCIe lanes for the graphics card, so some cards run at x4 and may lose performance.3
Some owners report crashes or stutter in demanding games, though most say games run fine.3
Ships with ordinary thermal paste instead of solder or liquid metal, so temperatures rise; owners recommend a delid or paste change.3
Some owners cannot run DDR5-6000 or faster with XMP, and RAM can get stuck at 4800 MHz or reboot in loops.3
Falls behind the 7500F and the Intel i5-13400F in some games, especially those that benefit from large cache such as CS2 and Valorant.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 5 8400F

7.9

Show more

Hide

Platform

8.9

Show more

Hide

Processor type

CPU socket

Chipset

CPU architecture

Instruction sets

Show more

Performance

7.7

Show more

Hide

N. of physical cores

CPU threads

CPU boost clock speed

CPU base clock speed

PassMark multi-core score

Show more

Architecture

7.0

Show more

Hide

Semiconductor size

Foundry

L3 cache

L2 cache

L1 cache

Show more

What reviewers say

Memory & PCIe

8.2

Show more

Hide

DDR memory version

Maximum memory speed

Max memory speed (JEDEC)

Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)

Maximum memory capacity

Show more

What reviewers say

Integrated graphics

4.0

Show more

Hide

Integrated graphics

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

What reviewers say

Power & Thermal

8.0

Show more

Hide

TDP (Thermal design power)

Base power (PL1)

Boost power (PL2)

?

Tau (power duration limit)

N/A

Configurable TDP

Show more

What reviewers say

AMD Ryzen 5 8400F vs the average processor

Why is AMD Ryzen 5 8400F better than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

2.26x higher multi-core score
This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (11,784 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
11,784 vs 5,209
2.13x higher PassMark score
This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (24,479 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
24,479 vs 11,469
More advanced microarchitecture
This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Phoenix vs Kaby Lake).
Phoenix vs Kaby Lake
65.5% higher single-core score
This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,541 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
2,541 vs 1,535
44.3% better single-core performance
This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,690 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
3,690 vs 2,558
Unlocked for overclocking
This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
4x more memory capacity
This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (256 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
256 GB vs 64 GB
66.7% smaller process node
This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (4 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
4 nm vs 12 nm

16.4% higher review score
Reviews score
7.8/ 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
▲ Better than 61% of models
80%
7.5
Average grade
20%
8.8
Popularity
Grades by review (12)
2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 10 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.
7.8 vs 6.7
23.6% higher sentiment score
8.9 vs 7.2
17.3% better value for money
AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has better value for money than the average processor (8.55 vs 7.3).
8.55 vs 7.29
2.63x cheaper
AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is cheaper than the average processor (£95 vs £250).
£95 vs £250

Modern CPU socket
This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM5 vs FP5).
AM5 vs FP5
4 years newer release date
This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2024 vs 2020).
May 2024
2024 vs 2020

2.26x higher multi-core score
This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (11,784 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
11,784 vs 5,209
2.13x higher PassMark score
This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (24,479 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
24,479 vs 11,469
65.5% higher single-core score
This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,541 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
2,541 vs 1,535
44.3% better single-core performance
This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,690 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
3,690 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
Higher base clock
This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x4.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
6x4.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
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
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
14 higher clock multiplier
This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (42 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
42 vs 28

More advanced microarchitecture
This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Phoenix vs Kaby Lake).
Phoenix vs Kaby Lake
66.7% smaller process node
This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (4 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
4 nm vs 12 nm
44.3% more L3 per core
This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2.7 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
2.67 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
More advanced foundry
This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 4 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
TSMC 4 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
5.05x more transistors
This processor has more transistors than the average processor (25 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
25 billion vs 4.95 billion
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
77.8% larger L3 cache
This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
16 MB vs 9 MB

4x more memory capacity
This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (256 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
256 GB vs 64 GB
Newer PCIe version
This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
4.0 vs 3.0
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
4 more PCIe lanes
This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
16 usable lanes
20 vs 16
Newer DDR support
This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
DDR5 vs DDR4
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
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

Why is AMD Ryzen 5 8400F worse than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

Weaker security extensions
This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, GMET vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, GMET 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 (x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
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
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, GMET vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, GMET 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 (x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/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.

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

4.0

The Tech Quest

≈ estimated

26/04/2026

Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and price comparison

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is redundant at its price; the Ryzen 7500F or 7600 are better buys, and it only makes sense if it is very cheap.

9.0

Cheap Bastard

≈ estimated

22/03/2025

Hands-on gaming tests · AM5 budget CPU with RX 6800

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 5 8400F performs surprisingly well in games, and most gamers won't notice its compromises, so it is recommended.

8.0

ImWateringPSUs

≈ estimated

19/02/2025

Full review · gaming tests and overclocking

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a slow, oddly named chip, but a decent budget AM5 option for gaming.

7.0

Tech YES City

≈ estimated

26/11/2024

Full review · 1080p, 1440p and 4K gaming tests

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is good value on sale, but the 7500F is the better buy for most.

5.0

Johnny D's PC Playground

≈ estimated

12/06/2024

Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks versus Ryzen 5 7600

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a decent chip, but its drawbacks outweigh the small saving; the Ryzen 5 7600 is the safer buy.

4.0

RandomGaminginHD

≈ estimated

11/06/2024

Hands-on review · gaming tests and comparison with 7500F and 7600

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is hard to recommend, so look at the 7500F or 7600 before buying.

5.0

RandomGaminginHD

≈ estimated

12/06/2024

Head-to-head comparison · gaming benchmarks

Verdict

AMD Ryzen 5 8400F clearly beats the Intel i5 8400, but the reviewer advises choosing the 7500F or 7600 instead.

Overview video

Shop video

Overview video

Overview video

Shop video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0

computerbase.de

≈ estimated

27/01/2025

Budget AMD Ryzen CPUs for AM5: 8400F vs. 7500F Review

Lab test · Budget AM5 chip

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a budget AM5 chip, but its halved cache and fewer PCIe lanes leave it slightly behind the Ryzen 5 7500F.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 5 8400F

Most affordable entry point to the modern AM5 socket platform
Excellent value for money, frequently found at significant discounts on retailers like AliExpress
Lower power consumption (65W TDP) and cooler operation compared to higher-end 7000 series chips
Provides a future-proof upgrade path for budget builders on the AM5 platform
Solid 1080p gaming performance when paired with a mid-range discrete GPU
Efficient for general home use, office tasks, and casual gaming

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 5 8400F

Significantly reduced L3 cache (16MB) compared to the Ryzen 5 7500F/7600 (32MB), which negatively impacts gaming consistency
Limited PCIe connectivity, offering only PCIe 4.0 and fewer lanes (20 total), which can bottleneck high-end GPUs or NVMe SSDs
No integrated graphics (indicated by the 'F' suffix), requiring a dedicated graphics card
Utilizes a mobile chip architecture (Phoenix) rather than the standard desktop architecture, leading to lower performance in cache-sensitive titles
Misleading naming scheme that suggests it is newer or faster than the more performant Ryzen 5 7500F
Stock Wraith Stealth cooler may allow temperatures to reach 80°C under heavy loads

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a budget-oriented desktop processor based on the Zen 4 architecture and designed for the AM5 socket. Fabricated on TSMC's 4nm FinFET process, it features 6 cores and 12 threads with a base clock speed of 4.2 GHz and a maximum boost clock of 4.7 GHz. Its main characteristics include a 65W TDP, support for high-speed DDR5 memory, and PCIe 4.0 connectivity. Key pros are its high efficiency, low power consumption, and inclusion of a Wraith Stealth cooler, making it an affordable entry point for the AM5 platform. However, its main cons are the total lack of integrated graphics, requiring a dedicated GPU, and a reduced L3 cache of 16MB (half that of the Ryzen 5 7600), which can bottleneck performance in certain cache-sensitive games and applications.

Best alternatives

AMD Ryzen 5 5600

Processors

Intel Core i3-12100F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 7500F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 1700

Processors

Intel Core i3-14100F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 4600G

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X

Processors

AMD Ryzen 3 5300G

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 7400F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Processors

Intel Processor 300

Processors

See best alternatives in Buying Guide

Compare AMD Ryzen 5 8400F with other processors

Graphic comparison of AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and other processors

No results found