OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Core i5 11400H Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£200PassMark benchmark result:15184N. of physical cores:6CPU boost clock speed:4.5 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1787TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

Intel Core i5 11400H Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.2

Overall score

Score
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 57% of models
Score components

90%

6.2

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–²Better than 57% of processors
6.2

Technical score

Technical score
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 58% of models
Score components

60%

5.8

Performance

18%

6.9

Cache & Architecture

10%

6.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.9

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

7.5

Integrated Graphics

â–²Better than 58% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £200

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i5 11400H

Technical score
Technical score
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 58% of models
Score components:

60%

5.8

Performance

18%

6.9

Cache & Architecture

10%

6.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.9

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

7.5

Integrated Graphics

6.2
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core i5 11400H has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 66% of models
Score components:

60%

6.2

Overall score

40%

9.5

Price

7.2
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1787
CPU socket
FCBGA1787
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1787 CPU socket, which is older than that of 70.1% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
Chipset
QM580, HM570, WM590
Chipset
QM580, HM570, WM590
â–¼ Worse than 57% of models
This processor supports QM580, HM570, WM590 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 56.7% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
6
N. of physical cores
6
â–² Better than 50% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 6 CPU cores, which is more than 49.9% of processors and equal to 13.4% of processors.
CPU threads
12
CPU threads
12
â–² Better than 55% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 12 CPU threads, which is more than 55% of processors and equal to 14.1% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
â–² Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.5 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
4.5 GHz
â–² Better than 57% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.5 GHz which is higher than that of 56.5% of processors and equal to that of 5.4% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
6x 2.2 GHz
CPU base clock speed
6x 2.2 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor has a base clock of 6x2.2 GHz which is lower than that of 53.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Semiconductor size
10 nm
â–² Better than 52% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 52.4% of processors and equal to that of 19.1% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 10 nm SuperFin
Foundry
Intel 10 nm SuperFin
â–² Better than 54% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 10 nm SuperFin foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 54% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
L3 cache
12 MB
L3 cache
12 MB
â–² Better than 54% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 12 MB which is larger than that of 54.4% of processors and equal to that of 9% of processors.
L2 cache
7.5 MB
L2 cache
7.5 MB
â–² Better than 73% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 7.5 MB which is larger than that of 72.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
L1 cache
576 KB
L1 cache
576 KB
â–² Better than 74% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 576 KB which is larger than that of 73.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4X
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4X
â–² Better than 63% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR4X, which is newer than that of 63.4% of processors and equal to that of 3% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
3,200 MHz
Maximum memory speed
3,200 MHz
â–² Better than 52% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 3,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 51.8% of processors and equal to 8.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
?
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
â–² Better than 62% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 61.9% of processors and equal to 21.4% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 63.4% of processors and equal to that in 1.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
16
Integrated GPU execution units
16
â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 16 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 56.4% of processors and equal to 6.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
â–² Better than 42% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.3% of processors and equal to that of 26.1% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
â–² Better than 85% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 85% of processors and equal to 5.6% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 45 W which is lower than that of 40.1% of processors and equal to that of 11.4% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
45 W
Base power (PL1)
45 W
â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 45 W which is lower than that of 39.9% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
109 W
Boost power (PL2)
109 W
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 109 W which is higher than that of 70.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
â–¼ Worse than 10% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 3.4% of processors and equal to that of 86.1% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Core i5 11400H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.5x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    1.25 MB/core
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Tiger Lake
    â–² Better than 64% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    4.0
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • 3x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    7.5 MB
    â–² Better than 73% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (7.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    7.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 33.7% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1967
    â–² Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1967 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,967 vs 1,471
  • 43.6% higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    15,184
    â–² Better than 61% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (15,184 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    15,184 vs 10,572.5
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    20
    â–² Better than 58% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 33.7% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1967
    â–² Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1967 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,967 vs 1,471
  • 43.6% higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    15,184
    â–² Better than 61% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (15,184 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    15,184 vs 10,572.5
  • 4 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    12
    â–² Better than 55% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    12 vs 8
  • 18.3% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,958
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,958 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,958 vs 2,500
  • 32.9% higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    6,420
    â–² Better than 59% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (6,420 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    6,420 vs 4,829
  • 4.7% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.5 GHz
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 11.5% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    545
    â–² Better than 60% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (545 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    545 vs 489
  • 2.5x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    1.25 MB/core
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Tiger Lake
    â–² Better than 64% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 3x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    7.5 MB
    â–² Better than 73% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (7.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    7.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 50% larger L1 cache
    L1 cache
    576 KB
    â–² Better than 74% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (576 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    576 KB vs 384 KB
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 10 nm SuperFin
    â–² Better than 54% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 10 nm SuperFin vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 10 nm SuperFin vs Intel 14 nm
  • 16.7% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    10 nm
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (10 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    10 nm vs 12 nm
  • 50% larger L3 cache
    L3 cache
    12 MB
    â–² Better than 54% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (12 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    12 MB vs 8 MB
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    4.0
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    20
    â–² Better than 58% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • 2x more memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    128 GB
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    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
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR4X
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4
  • 1 more supported displays
    Maximum supported displays
    4
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 67.9% slower classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    107.17
    Category Benchmark
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (107.2 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    107.17 vs 334.1
  • 81.7% higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    109 W
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (109 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    109 W vs 60 W
  • 7.3% larger die size
    Die size
    190 mm²
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (190 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    190 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1787
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1787 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1787 vs FP4
  • 6 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    22
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (22 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    22 vs 28
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1787
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1787 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1787 vs FP4
  • 67.9% slower classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    107.17
    Category Benchmark
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (107.2 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    107.17 vs 334.1
  • 6 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    22
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (22 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    22 vs 28
  • 7.3% larger die size
    Die size
    190 mm²
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (190 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    190 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 81.7% higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    109 W
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (109 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    109 W vs 60 W

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

L
laptopmedia.com
16/03/2022
Summary of the review
[Comparison] Intel Core i7-11390H vs Intel Core i5-11400H – Performance is closer than expected
T
techspot.com
17/08/2021
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-11400H Review: Mainstream Ryzen Challenger
B
browser.geekbench.com
01/05/2021
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-11400H Benchmarks - Geekbench
C
cpubenchmark.net
Q3 2021
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-11400H @ 2.70GHz - CPU Benchmarks
L
laptopmedia.com
28/09/2022
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-11400H - LaptopMedia Benchmarks
V
valid.x86.fr
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
CPU-Z Single-Thread Benchmark for Intel Core i5-11400H
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-11400H - Specs, Benchmarks, and Laptop Offers
(Translated)Show original
L
lesnumeriques.com
05/08/2021
Summary of the review
Lenovo Legion 5 (Ryzen 5 5600H) vs Asus TUF F15 (Core i5-11400H): Would you like me to find specific performance benchmarks for these processors in a...
(Translated)Show original
L
lesnumeriques.com
11/02/2022
Summary of the review
HP Victus 16 (d0206nf) Review: The Ideal Entry-Level Gaming Laptop
(Translated)Show original
C
cowcotland.com
18/10/2021
Summary of the review
ASUS TUF F15 Laptop Review: Intel and NVIDIA for the win
(Translated)Show original
L
lesnumeriques.com
25/07/2021
Summary of the review
Asus TUF Gaming F15 Review: The Gaming Laptop That Won't Break the Bank
(Translated)Show original
P
profesionalreview.com
26/04/2021
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-11400F Review (Full Analysis)
(Translated)Show original
G
geeknetic.es
30/04/2021
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-11400F Review [Full Analysis]
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.it
11/05/2021
Summary of the review
Intel Tiger Lake i5-11400H Laptop Processor - Review and Benchmarks
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
28/09/2022
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 5 6600H vs Intel Core i5-11400H Comparison
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
26/07/2021
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 5 5600H vs Intel Core i5-11400H - Each CPU Shines in Its Own Way
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
22/10/2021
Summary of the review
Dell XPS 15 9510 Core i5 laptop review - Base model with the brakes on", "Dell XPS 15 9510 Core i5 review - A held-back entry level model
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
03/08/2023
Summary of the review
Blackview MP200 Mini PC Review - Small desktop PC with Intel Core i5-11400H in an attractive case
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i5 11400H

  • Excellent price-to-performance ratio for budget-conscious gaming builds.
  • Strong single-core performance that competes with higher-tier last-gen processors.
  • Support for modern features like PCIe 4.0 (20 lanes) and Thunderbolt 4.
  • Competitive performance in bursty productivity workloads like MATLAB.
  • Better availability compared to rival AMD Ryzen 5000 mobile series during supply shortages.

What we don't like about Intel Core i5 11400H

  • Heavily cut-down integrated GPU (only 16 execution units), requiring a discrete GPU for most gaming.
  • Lower power efficiency compared to AMD's Ryzen 5 5600H, especially at lower wattages.
  • Significant reduction in L3 cache (12MB) compared to i7 models, which impacts cache-heavy apps like Excel.
  • Tendency to run hot in laptops (often reaching 90°C+), sometimes leading to thermal throttling under heavy load.
  • Multi-threaded performance lags behind competitors in prolonged, heavy workloads like video encoding.

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-11400H is a high-performance mobile processor based on the 10nm SuperFin Tiger Lake-H architecture, featuring 6 cores and 12 threads with a 12MB L3 cache. It operates at a base clock speed of 2.7 GHz, capable of boosting up to 4.5 GHz for single-core tasks and 4.1 GHz across all cores, while typically running within a 35W to 45W TDP range. Key advantages include its strong single-core performance, which makes it an excellent choice for mid-range gaming laptops, and its modern feature set including support for PCIe 4.0, Thunderbolt 4, and DDR4-3200 memory. However, it faces some drawbacks, such as a significantly cut-down integrated UHD graphics unit with only 16 execution units, requiring a discrete GPU for demanding visuals, and lower power efficiency compared to its successors or some competing Ryzen 5000 series chips in low-power scenarios.

Compare Intel Core i5 11400H with other processors

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

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i5 11400H and other processors

No results found