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 i5-8400T review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£60PassMark multi-core score:7417N. of physical cores:6CPU boost clock speed:3.3 GHzCPU socket:LGA1151TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

Intel Core i5-8400T Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 1 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i5-8400T
5.7/10

Overall score

Score
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components

40%

4.7

Technical score

25%

4.7

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 88% of processors
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 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 71% of models
Score components

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 71%
4.7

Technical score

Technical score
4.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components

60%

4.0

Performance

18%

4.8

Architecture

10%

5.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 66%
4.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.7/ 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 79% of models

4.7

Mark 6.7 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.2

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 video review, 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 79%
?

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-i5-8400t
intel-core-i5-8400t
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.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i5-8400T

Technical score
Technical score
4.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components:

60%

4.0

Performance

18%

4.8

Architecture

10%

5.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

4.7
Reviews score
4.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 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 71% of models
Score components:

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.0
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
Z390, Z370, Q370, H370, B365, B360, H310
This processor supports Z390, Z370, Q370, H370, B365, B360, H310 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 57.3% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is broader support than 58.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.6% 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
6
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 6 CPU threads, which is fewer than 66.7% of processors and equal to 2.1% 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
6x 1.7 GHz & 6x 3.3 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 6x1.7 GHz & 6x3.3 GHz which is higher than that of 83.6% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
7,417
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 7,417 in PassMark, which is lower than 61.2% 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
9 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 9 MB which is larger than that of 49.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
L2 cache
1.5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1.5 MB which is smaller than that of 63.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.5% of processors.
L1 cache
384 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 384 KB which is larger than that of 44% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,666 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,666 MHz, which is lower than that of 56.7% of processors and equal to 7.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2666 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2666 MHz, which is lower than that of 59.8% of processors and equal to 7.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Intel UHD Graphics 630
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 630
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 630 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 45.6% of processors and equal to that in 8% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
?
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
VP9 (HW decode)
This processor supports VP9 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 73.9% of processors and equal to 3.5% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.2% of processors and equal to that of 14% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.3% of processors and equal to that of 14.1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 25 W
Show more

Intel Core i5-8400T vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x1.7 GHz & 6x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    6x1.7 GHz & 6x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 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
  • 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
  • 4.17x cheaper
    Intel Core i5-8400T is cheaper than the average processor (£60 vs £250).
    £60 vs £250
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
    LGA1151 vs FP5
  • 22.2% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    35 W vs 45 W
  • 4.17x cheaper
    Intel Core i5-8400T is cheaper than the average processor (£60 vs £250).
    £60 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
    LGA1151 vs FP5
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x1.7 GHz & 6x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    6x1.7 GHz & 6x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 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
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • 22.2% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    35 W vs 45 W
  • 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
  • 29.9% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.7/ 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 79% of models

    4.7

    Mark 6.7 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.2

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, 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.
    4.7 vs 6.7
  • 25.5% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1906 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,906 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • 35.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,417 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,417 vs 11,469
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 29.9% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.7/ 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 79% of models

    4.7

    Mark 6.7 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.2

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, 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.
    4.7 vs 6.7
  • 4.7% worse value for money
    Intel Core i5-8400T has worse value for money than the average processor (6.96 vs 7.3).
    6.96 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
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 2 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2018 vs 2020).
    April 2018
    2018 vs 2020
  • 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
  • 25.5% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1906 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,906 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • 35.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,417 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,417 vs 11,469
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 24.9% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,910 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,910 vs 5,209
  • 21.6% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (2,200 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    2,200 vs 2,804.5
  • 2 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (6 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    6 vs 8
  • 11 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (17 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    17 vs 28
  • 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
  • 50% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1.5 MB vs 3 MB
  • 16.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,666 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,666 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 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
  • 11.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (41.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    41.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2666 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,666 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)

Video reviews

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

4.0
Tecno Innovadores
≈ estimated
26/10/2021
Hands-on test · HD 630 integrated graphics in games
Verdict
Intel Core i5-8400T is a poor gaming choice, as most games fell short of 30 fps on its integrated HD 630 graphics.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i5-8400T

  • Extremely low power consumption with a 35W TDP, making it ideal for mini-PCs and quiet office builds.
  • Features 6 physical cores which provide a significant multitasking boost over previous 4-core i5 generations.
  • Integrated UHD Graphics 630 is sufficient for basic 4K video playback and everyday productivity tasks.
  • Excellent thermal management; it runs very cool even in cramped enclosures with limited airflow.
  • Good value when found in the used market, often salvaged from decommissioned corporate tiny-in-one systems.

What customers don't like about Intel Core i5-8400T

  • Very low base clock speed of 1.7 GHz can lead to sluggish performance in tasks that don't trigger turbo boost.
  • Struggles with modern AAA gaming; users report significant bottlenecks when paired with mid-to-high-end GPUs.
  • Lacks Hyper-Threading (6 cores / 6 threads), which limits its performance in heavily threaded professional workloads.
  • Locked multiplier prevents any traditional overclocking to improve performance.
  • The 3.3 GHz maximum turbo boost is considerably lower than the 4.0 GHz offered by the standard i5-8400 model.

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-8400T is a power-efficient 8th Generation Coffee Lake desktop processor featuring 6 cores and 6 threads with a low 35W TDP. It operates at a base frequency of 1.70 GHz and can reach a maximum turbo speed of 3.30 GHz, supported by 9MB of Intel Smart Cache and integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630. Main pros include its exceptional energy efficiency and low heat output, making it ideal for compact mini-PCs and silent builds, while still offering solid multi-core performance for daily productivity and light 4K media tasks. However, its primary cons are the significantly lower clock speeds compared to the standard i5-8400, a lack of Hyper-Threading, and limited gaming capabilities without a dedicated GPU.

Compare Intel Core i5-8400T 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 i5-8400T and other processors

No results found