OVERALL

ALTERNATIVES

SPECS

VS AVERAGE

REVIEWS

Intel Core i5-9400F review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£90PassMark multi-core score:9461N. of physical cores:6CPU boost clock speed:4.1 GHzCPU socket:LGA1151TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i5-9400F Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 17 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i5-9400F

6.6/10

▼Worse than 54% of processors

7.6

▲Better than 65%

4.7

▼Worse than 68%

8.0

▲Better than 72%

?

Not in any best-of list yet

4.0
Gaming
Gaming
4.0/ 10
✕
What it is
Measures single-core benchmark performance, peak boost clock speeds, and fast L3 cache sizing critical for high frame rates.
When it matters
When you want to play demanding mobile games, 3D titles, or run graphics-intensive apps smoothly.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
30.0%
4.3
PassMark single-core score
25.0%
4.2
Geekbench 6 single-core score
20.0%
5.2
CPU boost clock speed
17.0%
1.8
L3 cache
8.0%
3.6
N. of physical cores
2.4
Video editing
Video editing
2.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Assesses multi-core benchmark throughput, total physical core and thread count, and cache bandwidth for rapid video rendering.
When it matters
When evaluating how effectively this processors meets your specific video editing needs.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
45.0%
1.7
Geekbench 6 multi-core score
20.0%
3.6
N. of physical cores
20.0%
3.3
CPU threads
15.0%
1.8
L3 cache

Where to buy

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

Best rankings

What reviewers say about the Intel Core i5-9400F

Based on 3 · 11

Reviewers praise strong gaming performance and value, but note the missing integrated graphics, no overclocking and weaker productivity work.

Praised

Mixed views

Criticised

Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Intel Core i5-9400F

Based on 143 owners sharing their experience in online comments

61%positive6%mixed33%negative

Owners mostly praise affordable gaming performance, while complaints focus on stutter, CPU limits, heat, and noisy cooling.

What owners like

Owners report smooth high-settings 1080p gaming, often above 60 fps in demanding titles like Metro Exodus and Warzone with mid-range GPUs.50
Owners report no bottleneck with GPUs from RX 570 and GTX 1660 up to RTX 2060 and RTX 2070 Super, even at 1440p.19
Owners say it is cheap on sale, cheaper than Ryzen rivals, and still delivers solid gaming for the money in a budget build.16
Owners run it on Z390, B360 and H310 boards without problems, though one needed a BIOS update first.5
Owners upgrading from older i3 or i5 chips report big gains, with the GPU no longer held back and fps rising sharply in games.5
Owners say it runs gaming and streaming together well, such as CS at about 300 fps with the stream on.4
Owners find it handles video editing, design work and home media PC duties well alongside gaming.3

What owners dislike

Owners report low or dropping fps in CPU-heavy games like Apex Legends, Fortnite and Battlefield V, with the processor pinned near 100 percent.19
Owners describe stutters and frame drops in CPU-heavy games, sometimes dropping for a second even on a decent GPU.16
Owners report the CPU stays at 100 percent while the graphics card runs at only 30 to 60 percent, a bottleneck with GPUs like the RTX 4060.15
Owners see 80 to 90 degrees Celsius in games like Red Dead and Rainbow Six, and in video rendering, with the stock cooler.8
Some owners get no display or blue screens and must update the BIOS, while others report boards failing or the PC not starting.6
Owners say the chip's 6 cores and limited upgrade path mean a faster CPU later usually needs a new motherboard too.5
The stock cooler box gets very loud when the processor boosts, with a whining noise during gaming.4

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i5-9400F

6.6

Show more

Hide

Platform

7.8

Show more

Hide

Processor type

CPU socket

Chipset

CPU architecture

Instruction sets

Show more

Performance

4.0

Show more

Hide

N. of physical cores

CPU threads

CPU boost clock speed

CPU base clock speed

PassMark multi-core score

Show more

What reviewers say

Architecture

4.8

Show more

Hide

Semiconductor size

Foundry

L3 cache

L2 cache

L1 cache

Show more

Memory & PCIe

5.7

Show more

Hide

DDR memory version

Maximum memory speed

Max memory speed (JEDEC)

Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)

N/A

Maximum memory capacity

Show more

Integrated graphics

4.0

Show more

Hide

Integrated graphics

Integrated GPU model

N/A

Integrated GPU execution units

N/A

Integrated GPU base frequency

N/A

Integrated media encoders/decoders

N/A

Show more

What reviewers say

Power & Thermal

7.0

Show more

Hide

TDP (Thermal design power)

Base power (PL1)

Boost power (PL2)

?

Tau (power duration limit)

?

Configurable TDP

Show more

What reviewers say

Intel Core i5-9400F vs the average processor

Why is Intel Core i5-9400F better than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

3.42x faster classroom rendering
This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,161.7 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
1,161.7 vs 340.075
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
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.
19.4% higher review score
Reviews score
8.0/ 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 72% of models
80%
7.8
Average grade
20%
9.1
Popularity
Grades by review (17)
5 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 12 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.
8.0 vs 6.7
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
More advanced microarchitecture
This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake).
Coffee Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake
Higher base clock
This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
6x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz

19.4% higher review score
Reviews score
8.0/ 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 72% of models
80%
7.8
Average grade
20%
9.1
Popularity
Grades by review (17)
5 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 12 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.
8.0 vs 6.7
2.78x cheaper
Intel Core i5-9400F is cheaper than the average processor (£90 vs £250).
£90 vs £250

Modern CPU socket
This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
LGA1151 vs FP5

3.42x faster classroom rendering
This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,161.7 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
1,161.7 vs 340.075
2 more performance cores
This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
6 vs 4
Higher base clock
This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
6x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz

More advanced microarchitecture
This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake).
Coffee Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake
15.8% smaller die size
This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (149 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
149 mm² vs 177 mm²

Supports memory overclocking
This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
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

Includes a cooler
This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.

Why is Intel Core i5-9400F worse than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

73% lower multi-core score
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,407 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
1,407 vs 5,209
No configurable TDP
This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
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
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
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
13.7% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (423 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
423 vs 490

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, AVX, 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, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
More limited crypto acceleration
This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
AES vs AES, SHA

73% lower multi-core score
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,407 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
1,407 vs 5,209
No simultaneous multithreading
This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
6.8% lower boost clock
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
4.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
13.7% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (423 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
423 vs 490
17.5% lower PassMark score
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (9,461 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
9,461 vs 11,469
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
14.2% weaker multi-core performance
This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (2,407 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
2,407 vs 2,804.5
8.3% lower single-core score
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,408 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
1,408 vs 1,535
5.3% weaker single-core performance
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,422 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
2,422 vs 2,558

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

No integrated graphics
This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.

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

Video reviews

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

8.0

Awesome Cloud

≈ estimated

25/01/2022

Gaming benchmark · 20 games tested at 1080p

Verdict

Intel Core i5-9400F mostly holds 60 fps at 1080p with a GTX 1660 Super, though some games are CPU-limited.

8.0

Awesome Cloud

≈ estimated

30/11/2020

Benchmark review · 2020 gaming tests at 1080p

Verdict

Intel Core i5-9400F is still a decent gaming CPU and should be fine for a couple more years.

Not graded

Not graded

Overview video

Not graded

Not graded

Hands-on video, no verdict

Not graded

Pcxdd · 09/07/2025

Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and CPU comparison

Intel Core i5-9400F is still fine for 1080p gaming if you already own it, but Ryzen 5 3600 or 5500 are better buys.

Likes

Still runs modern games well at 1080p
Good price and efficiency for its age
Stable performance in recent gaming tests

Dislikes

Only six threads, weak for streaming and multitasking
No integrated graphics, so a dedicated GPU is required
Ryzen 5 3600 and 5500 offer more for the price

Eduardo Tecnología · 23/03/2021

Hands-on test · gaming PC performance in three games

The Intel Core i5-9400F runs well at high settings with 100+ fps, though Apex Legends has some optimization issues.

Likes

Smooth Fortnite performance at lower graphics settings
Strong frame rates for a 144 Hz monitor in some titles
Playable Warzone performance across graphics presets

Dislikes

Apex Legends stays capped at 75 fps and shows rendering glitches
Fortnite at Epic settings drops to around 40-45 fps

benjaps07 · 28/07/2020

Buying advice · game benchmarks · Ryzen 5 2600 comparison

The Intel Core i5-9400F is very good value for gaming, with strong performance and a lower price than its AMD rival.

Likes

Strong frame rates in games compared with the Ryzen 5 2600
Good overall performance for basic tasks and gaming
Good price-to-performance for its class

Dislikes

Six cores and no hyperthreading, so fewer threads than hoped
Small frame-rate gains over the rival in some games
Not a fit for high-end systems, where top chips are far stronger

Ricardo AC · 07/07/2020

Long-term use · a year of gaming and streaming notes

Intel Core i5-9400F suits casual gaming but is not the right pick for streaming, editing or Warzone.

Likes

Good gaming performance in casual titles like Fortnite
Low power draw with a 65W TDP
Good value for the price paid
Runs cool with a good cooler

Dislikes

Struggles with Warzone, pushing CPU load to near maximum
Not suited to streaming or frequent video editing
Locked CPU and no integrated graphics

Facussj3 - Hardware & Gaming · 26/05/2020

Hands-on review · benchmarks, game tests and unboxing

Intel Core i5-9400F is excellent value for money, especially for people upgrading an existing PC.

Likes

Excellent gaming performance across all tested titles
Low temperatures in demanding games
Strong value for money at its price

Dislikes

Turbo clock appears lower than the advertised frequency
Upgrading also requires a new motherboard, not just the processor

LordsTecno · 01/05/2020

Benchmark review · Cinebench and game FPS tests

Intel Core i5-9400F is strongly recommended for gaming builds, with good price-performance against alternatives.

Likes

Good gaming performance for its price
Clear gains in Cinebench and game FPS tests
Strong value compared with similar-spec CPUs

Dislikes

Similar-spec alternatives cost only slightly more
Older 2019 chip, so its value depends on current pricing

MAXIMUS TV · 05/06/2019

Combo review · FPS tests at 1080p

Intel Core i5-9400F in this combo performs very well at 1080p, running games smoothly and well online.

Likes

Strong frame rates in demanding games at 1080p
Good performance for the price
Smooth gameplay in competitive titles
Plays well online

Dislikes

Weaker results in a few poorly optimised games
Basic two-fan cooling on the graphics card

FULLH4RD · 20/04/2019

Benchmark comparison · i5-8400 in games and synthetic tests

Intel Core i5-9400F is good value for builds with a dedicated GPU, performing about the same as the i5-8400 for less money.

Likes

Performance about the same as the i5-8400
Slightly cheaper than the i5-8400
Small or no gap in the games tested

Dislikes

No integrated graphics, so a dedicated GPU is required
Clear gain over the i5-8400 only in the most demanding test

OTAKUGAME FR · 15/07/2023

Hands-on test · bottleneck with RTX 4060 in Exoprimal

Intel Core i5-9400F is fine for 60 FPS on Ultra in Exoprimal, but it holds back the RTX 4060 at higher frame rates.

Likes

Runs Exoprimal at 60 FPS on Ultra settings
GPU stays well used at a 60 FPS target

Dislikes

Cannot hit 90 or 120 FPS, leaving the graphics card waiting on it
Bottlenecks the RTX 4060 in high frame rate scenarios

MVHardware · 23/04/2019

Hands-on review · benchmarks and gaming tests

Intel Core i5-9400F performs very well and is recommended for mid-to-high-end gaming builds at its price.

Likes

Strong gaming performance in Full HD and 1440p
Good value for a mid-to-high-end gaming build
Clear benchmark results in Cinebench, 7-Zip and games

Dislikes

Productivity clearly behind the AMD Ryzen 5 2600
Stock cooler is not good enough for this processor

Tweakers Tech Hub · 01/07/2019

Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and AMD comparison

Intel Core i5-9400F is a very interesting chip that offers the best gaming price-performance in its segment.

Likes

Strong gaming performance at medium and ultra settings
Best price-performance ratio in its price segment
Clear benchmark results across games and applications

Dislikes

Weaker multithreaded performance than comparable AMD processors
No integrated graphics, so you need a separate graphics card

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0

computerbase.de

≈ estimated

13/02/2019

Intel Core i5-9400F Review - ComputerBase

Benchmark test · Graphics-free CPU

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-9400F is a capable six-core chip, but most home buyers should pick the non-F i5-9400 because the F version brings no technical advantage.

7.2

chip.de

✓ explicit

09/03/2021

Intel Core i5-9400F Review - CHIP

Lab test · CPU without graphics

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-9400F is a good six-core chip for office and everyday PCs, passable for gaming, but it has no built-in graphics.

8.6

profesionalreview.com

✓ explicit

03/09/2019

Intel Core i5-9400F Review (Full Analysis)

Hands-on test · Desktop processor

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-9400F is a six-core chip whose gaming performance comes close to the i9-9900K in many games, but you must add a graphics card.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i5-9400F

Excellent price-to-performance ratio for mid-range gaming builds
Strong single-core performance ensures snappy everyday responsiveness
Low power consumption (65W TDP) and operates at cool temperatures
Easy installation process and compatible with affordable 300-series motherboards
Effective 4.1 GHz turbo boost for handling demanding active workloads
Often significantly cheaper than the standard i5-9400 model

What customers don't like about Intel Core i5-9400F

Lacks integrated graphics, making a dedicated GPU mandatory for display
No Hyper-Threading support (6 cores/6 threads) limits multi-threaded professional tasks
Locked multiplier prevents traditional overclocking
Included stock cooler is often described as basic or audible under high loads
Ages poorly in modern, CPU-heavy games compared to newer 10th+ gen or Ryzen alternatives
On a 'dead' platform (LGA 1151) with limited future upgrade paths

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-9400F is a 9th Generation Coffee Lake desktop processor featuring 6 cores and 6 threads with a 2.9 GHz base frequency and up to 4.1 GHz max turbo speed. Built on a 14nm process with a 65W TDP and 9MB of Intel Smart Cache, it provides strong single-core performance and excellent value for mainstream gaming. Key advantages include low power consumption, included thermal cooling, and compatibility with affordable 300-series motherboards. However, it lacks integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU, and does not support Hyper-Threading or overclocking, which can limit its effectiveness in heavy multi-threaded professional workloads.

Best alternatives

AMD Ryzen 5 8400F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 5600

Processors

Intel Core i3-12100F

Processors

Intel Core i3-14100F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 4600G

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 1700

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 7500F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 3600

Processors

AMD Ryzen 3 5300G

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X

Processors

See best alternatives in Buying Guide

Compare Intel Core i5-9400F with other processors

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i5-9400F and other processors

No results found