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 i5-6400 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£35PassMark multi-core score:5177N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.3 GHzCPU socket:LGA1151TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i5-6400 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 5 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i5-6400
5.1/10

Overall score

Score
5.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components

40%

4.3

Technical score

25%

4.3

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

4.3

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 96% of processors
6.5

Value for money

Value for money
6.5/ 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–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components

70%

5.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 88%
4.3

Technical score

Technical score
4.3/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
Score components

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

4.5

Architecture

10%

5.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 78%
4.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.3/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models

4.3

Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.0

Average grade

20%

8.2

Popularity

Grades by review (5)
2 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 0 estimated from the review. 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.
â–¼Worse than 85%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 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 (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • intel-core-i5-6400
  • intel-core-i5-6400
  • intel-core-i5-6400
intel-core-i5-6400
intel-core-i5-6400
intel-core-i5-6400
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 Intel Core i5-6400

Based on 1 · 4

Reviewers are split on gaming: some find frame rates perfectly playable, while others feel it holds back smoother performance.
Mixed views
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Intel Core i5-6400

Based on 48 owners sharing their experience in online comments

50%positive10%mixed40%negative

Owners value its overclocking and smooth play in lighter games, while stutters, weak frame rates, and age remain common complaints.

What owners dislike

  • Owners with GTX 1060 or RX 550 class cards report very low frame rates, around 20 fps in many games, because the CPU sits at 85–100% usage.9
  • Owners report sudden freezes and stutter in demanding games like Fortnite and Minecraft, with frame rates dropping to around 15 fps every few seconds.6
  • Owners say the CPU hits 100% usage in newer games and with discord running, which holds back even mid-range graphics cards.5
  • Owners say it struggles to run modern titles like Overwatch and Hogwarts Legacy, with frequent frame drops because the processor is too old.5
  • Owners say overclocking only works on Z170 boards with the right BIOS, and some boards like B150 cannot change the BCLK base clock at all.4
  • Some owners report crashes in games like PUBG and boot problems on certain motherboards, though the cause is unclear.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i5-6400

Technical score
Technical score
4.3/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
Score components:

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

4.5

Architecture

10%

5.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

4.3
Reviews score
4.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.5/ 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–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components:

70%

5.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.5
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
LGA1151
This processor uses the LGA1151 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 59% of processors and equal to that of 9% 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
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 59.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
4
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 69% of processors and equal to 25.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.3 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.3 GHz which is lower than that of 87.4% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.7 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.7 GHz which is lower than that of 65.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
5,177
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 5,177 in PassMark, which is lower than 72.4% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.9% of processors and equal to that of 29% of processors.
L3 cache
6 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 6 MB which is smaller than that of 62.3% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR3L/DDR4, which is older than that of 78.6% of processors and equal to that of 5.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,133 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,133 MHz, which is lower than that of 76.4% of processors and equal to 8.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2133 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2133 MHz, which is lower than that of 78.8% of processors and equal to 5.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 530
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 530 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 76.2% of processors and equal to that in 2.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.1% of processors and equal to 20.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.7% of processors and equal to that of 25.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), JPEG (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 81.5% of processors.
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)
8 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 8 seconds which is longer than that of 90.1% of processors and equal to that of 6.9% of processors.
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core i5-6400 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 7.14x cheaper
    Intel Core i5-6400 is cheaper than the average processor (£35 vs £250).
    £35 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
    LGA1151 vs FP5
  • 7.14x cheaper
    Intel Core i5-6400 is cheaper than the average processor (£35 vs £250).
    £35 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
    LGA1151 vs FP5
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 78.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,117 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,117 vs 5,209
  • 35.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.3/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models

    4.3

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.0

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    2 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 0 estimated from the review. 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.
    4.3 vs 6.7
  • 25% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 54.9% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,177 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,177 vs 11,469
  • 23.8% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1948 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,948 vs 2,558
  • 33.5% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (326 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    326 vs 490
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 35.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.3/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models

    4.3

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.0

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    2 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 0 estimated from the review. 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.
    4.3 vs 6.7
  • 40.3% lower sentiment score
    4.3 vs 7.2
  • 11.3% worse value for money
    Intel Core i5-6400 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.54 vs 7.3).
    6.54 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 5 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2015 vs 2020).
    September 2015
    2015 vs 2020
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 78.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,117 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,117 vs 5,209
  • 25% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 54.9% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,177 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,177 vs 11,469
  • 23.8% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1948 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,948 vs 2,558
  • 33.5% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (326 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    326 vs 490
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 27.4% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,115 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,115 vs 1,535
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.7 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.7 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 MB vs 3 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 50% less L2 per core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 33.3% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    6 MB vs 9 MB
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Skylake vs Kaby Lake).
    Skylake vs Kaby Lake
  • 33.3% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,133 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,133 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 27.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (34.1 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    34.1 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2133 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,133 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4
  • 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
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 530 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 530 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 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
  • 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
  • 20 seconds shorter turbo duration
    This processor has a lower turbo duration limit than the average processor (8 seconds vs 28 seconds). The average processor maintains turbo for 28 seconds.
    8 seconds vs 28 seconds

Video reviews

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

5.0
Older Tech Today
≈ estimated
19/06/2026
Hands-on review · game and compression benchmarks
Verdict
Intel Core i5-6400 is only worth it when bought very cheaply, since its performance disappoints and the older platform is hard to recommend.
4.0
Cheap Bastard
≈ estimated
12/11/2024
Gaming test · 8 games benchmark
Verdict
Intel Core i5-6400 is fine for Valorant and older games but nearly unusable in modern titles, and only acceptable for its low price.
7.0
Cheap Bastard
≈ estimated
28/07/2023
Comparison · CPU gaming tests and synthetic benchmarks
Verdict
Intel Core i5-6400 is evenly matched with the older chip in games, but it stutters less and loads games faster.
8.0
Greg Salazar
≈ estimated
29/01/2016
Head-to-head comparison · game and rendering benchmarks
Verdict
Intel Core i5-6400 is worth it for heavy gaming and video editing, while the i3 is enough on a budget.
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
trustedreviews.com
✓ explicit
12/01/2016
Lab test · Mainstream quad-core
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-6400 is a sensible four-core chip for multi-threaded work in low-power builds, but its slow single-core speed and weak built-in graphics hold it back.
7.0
trustedreviews.com
✓ explicit
12/01/2016
Lab test · Mainstream desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-6400 is a power-efficient mainstream chip for most games and apps, but its low clock speed makes single-core tasks sluggish.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i5-6400

  • Reliable quad-core performance for general productivity and casual multitasking
  • Excellent power efficiency with low heat output, making the stock cooler sufficient
  • Budget-friendly entry point into the Skylake architecture for users needing four physical cores
  • Capable of handling older or less demanding games like Valorant at stable frame rates
  • Solid performance in multi-threaded office tasks such as file compression

What customers don't like about Intel Core i5-6400

  • Low base clock speed (2.7 GHz) compared to higher-tier i5 models like the 6600K
  • Weak single-core performance makes it less ideal for high-framerate gaming
  • Lack of Hyper-Threading support limits its effectiveness in heavy video editing or streaming
  • Significant bottlenecking when paired with modern high-end graphics cards
  • The integrated Intel HD Graphics 530 is the weakest in the standard-power Skylake i5 lineup

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-6400 is a 6th generation 'Skylake' desktop processor featuring 4 physical cores and 4 threads, operating at a base frequency of 2.7 GHz with a maximum turbo boost speed of 3.3 GHz. Built on a 14nm process, it includes 6MB of Intel Smart Cache, a 65W TDP, and integrated Intel HD Graphics 530, supporting both DDR4-2133 and DDR3L-1600 memory. Its main advantages include high energy efficiency, reliable multi-core performance for productivity tasks like video editing, and native 4K support at 60Hz via DisplayPort. However, its primary drawbacks are a relatively low base clock speed compared to other i5 models in its generation, lack of Hyper-Threading, and no official support for Windows 11.

Compare Intel Core i5-6400 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 i5-6400 and other processors

No results found