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

Intel Core i5-12400F review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£150PassMark multi-core score:19530N. of physical cores:6CPU boost clock speed:4.4 GHzCPU socket:LGA1700TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i5-12400F Review: Compare 168 technical specifications, 9 expert and video reviews and 9 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i5-12400F
7.9/10

Overall score

Score
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists, owners and ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 15%, Sentiment score 10%, User 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 88% of models
Score components

40%

7.0

Technical score

25%

8.1

Reviews score

15%

8.4

List score

10%

8.3

Sentiment score

10%

9.6

User score

▲Better than 88% 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%

7.9

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

★Better than 96%
7.0

Technical score

Technical score
7.0/ 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 68% of models
Score components

60%

6.8

Performance

18%

7.0

Architecture

10%

8.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 68%
8.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.1/ 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 79% of models

80%

7.9

Average grade

20%

8.6

Popularity

Grades by review (9)
2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 7 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
▲Better than 79%
9.6

User score

User score
9.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 90% of models

80%

9.6

Rating

20%

10

Popularity

★Better than 90%
8.4

List score

List score
8.4/ 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 15% 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 (9)
List score: in 9 of 74 lists (12%)
★Better than 98%
  • intel-core-i5-12400f
intel-core-i5-12400f
Best prices
*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.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i5-12400F

Technical score
Technical score
7.0/ 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 68% of models
Score components:

60%

6.8

Performance

18%

7.0

Architecture

10%

8.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

7.0
Reviews score
8.1
User score
9.6
List score
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%

7.9

Overall score

30%

9.7

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
LGA1700
This processor uses the LGA1700 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 84.5% of processors and equal to that of 8.4% of processors.
Chipset
?
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
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 88.2% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% 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
4.4 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.4 GHz which is higher than that of 48.6% of processors and equal to that of 5.1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
6x 2.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 6x2.5 GHz which is higher than that of 52.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
19,530
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 19,530 in PassMark, which is higher than 68.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 50.8% of processors and equal to that of 19.5% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 7
This processor is built on the Intel 7 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
L3 cache
18 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 18 MB which is larger than that of 74.9% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
L2 cache
7.5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 7.5 MB which is larger than that of 71% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
L1 cache
480 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 480 KB which is larger than that of 60.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5, which is newer than that of 77.1% of processors and equal to that of 10.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
4,800 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 4,800 MHz, which is higher than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-4800 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-4800 MHz, which is higher than that of 62.3% of processors and equal to 6.7% 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
What reviewers say
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
What reviewers say
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)
117 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 117 W which is higher than that of 74.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
?
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel Core i5-12400F vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • 74.7% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,101 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,101 vs 5,209
  • 70.3% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (19,530 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    19,530 vs 11,469
  • 36.2% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,484 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,484 vs 2,558
  • 51.6% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,327 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,327 vs 1,535
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.5x more L2 per 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
  • 62.2% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 20.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 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 79% of models

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (9)
    2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 7 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
    8.1 vs 6.7
  • 31.5% higher user score
    User score
    9.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
    How we count it
    Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
    Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ★ Better than 90% of models

    80%

    9.6

    Rating

    20%

    10

    Popularity

    9.6 vs 7.3
  • 15% better value for money
    Intel Core i5-12400F has better value for money than the average processor (8.43 vs 7.3).
    8.43 vs 7.33
  • 15.3% higher sentiment score
    8.3 vs 7.2
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1700 vs FP5).
    LGA1700 vs FP5
  • 74.7% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,101 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,101 vs 5,209
  • 70.3% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (19,530 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    19,530 vs 11,469
  • 36.2% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,484 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,484 vs 2,558
  • 51.6% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,327 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,327 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • 2x higher bus transfer rate
    This processor has a higher bus transfer rate than the average processor (16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.5x more L2 per 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
  • 62.2% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 2.5x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (7.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    7.5 MB vs 3 MB
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • 2x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (18 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    18 MB vs 9 MB
  • 2.3x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (11.4 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    11.4 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    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
    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
  • 63.8% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (76.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    76.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 50% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4800 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    4,800 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 82.8% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (117 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    117 W vs 64 W
  • 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
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 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
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, 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.
  • 82.8% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (117 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    117 W vs 64 W
  • 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
  • 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

9.0
Iceberg Tech
≈ estimated
17/05/2024
Hands-on review · 10 game benchmarks and productivity tests
Verdict
Intel Core i5-12400F is very good for gaming at its price, and there are few better options right now.
7.0
Legit Camel Retro
≈ estimated
27/03/2023
Benchmark study · bottleneck tests with several GPUs
Verdict
Intel Core i5-12400F is fine for single-player games at high resolutions, but weak at competitive 1080p and in ray tracing.
7.0
TechArc
≈ estimated
05/10/2025
Comparison review · benchmarks, gaming and thermals
Verdict
Intel Core i5-12400F still holds up for gaming at its low price, but runs hot and offers less value than AM5 upgrades.
7.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
06/01/2025
Gaming test · 10 games at 1080p and 1440p
Verdict
Intel Core i5-12400F is a solid pairing for budget builds, but some games drop, so more testing is needed.
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Overview video
Overview video
Not graded

What reviewers agree on

Based on 2 · 7

Strong gaming performance at a fair price earns praise, but the stock cooler runs hot and there's no overclocking or integrated graphics.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
rockpapershotgun.com
≈ estimated
25/01/2022
Hands-on test · Gaming performance
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-12400F is a gaming-focused six-core that matches the Core i5-12600K in many games and runs cooler, but has no E-cores for multitasking.
8.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
20/08/2022
Hands-on test · Desktop six-core
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-12400F is a cool, efficient six-core that holds about 4 GHz under full load, but it needs a separate graphics card.

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i5-12400F

  • A cooler is included in the box.
  • PassMark single-core score of 3484 keeps everyday tasks quick.
  • Six cores and 12 threads handle multitasking well.
  • DDR4 and DDR5 support with memory speeds up to 4800 MHz.
  • Base power of 65 W keeps cooling simple.
  • 1.25 MB of L2 and 3 MB of L3 per core help data move quickly.

What we don't like about Intel Core i5-12400F

  • No integrated graphics, so a graphics card is required.
  • The multiplier is locked, so the clock speed cannot be raised.
  • A 2.5 GHz base clock means the chip depends on boost for speed.
  • Boost power of 117 W draws more power when the chip is busy.

Verdict

Fast on single tasks, the Intel Core i5-12400F posts a PassMark single-core score of 3484 and boosts to 4.4 GHz. It uses 10 nm manufacturing and a 163 mm² die, which keeps it fairly compact. Each core gets 1.25 MB of L2 and 3 MB of L3 cache. DDR4 and DDR5 support, with speeds up to 4800 MHz, keeps the memory options open. A cooler is included in the box, which is uncommon at this level. The downside is graphics, since none is built in and a graphics card is needed. Base power is 65 W and boost reaches 117 W, which is moderate, so cooling is not hard. It suits a buyer building a budget desktop who wants quick everyday speed, a cooler in the box, and room to upgrade memory later.

Compare Intel Core i5-12400F 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 i5-12400F and other processors

No results found