Question Intel Core i5-9400F CPU Review: Cutting On-Die Graphics For A Slightly Lower Price

tennis2

Respectable
Would like to see some testing done to determine how core count affects games these days with the "core count race" going on. It still seems like 4-6 cores is where the cutoff is before frequency is the determining factor of frame rates.

Also show if/how online multiplayer changes that conclusion.
 
Reactions: DMAN999
9400f would be a good deal if it had a higher turbo or overclocking support. Z390 boards suitable for overclocking are expensive as well.
Otherwise, Ryzen 5 2600x has 6 more threads, higher turbo, overclocking support, and cheap overclocking boards than negate the slightly higher chip price.
Still waiting on Computex.
 
I'm still wondering why there's even testing of single core performance. In the rendering test, multi-core, the Ryzens dominated Intel. Very next test was a single core performance test where as usual, Intel was stronger. Why? I can't think of any single core rendering, or games for that matter. It's kind of archaic to my mind. A multi-core test on software that that uses multiple cores makes perfect sense. It shows how well the software responds to the amount of threads. Saying an intel beats a Ryzen in single core rendering is.....
(I'm not gonna use those words in polite company)
 
I see the CPU has a base frequency of 2.9 and a turbo of 4.1 GHz, but this will be a single core maximum speed. Although it's locked, it should be possible in the mobo BIOS to set all 6 cores to run at this frequency.....if you have a good enough cooler.
 
Feb 13, 2019
25
0
30
It's funny how prices are different in different countries.. In one thread ,a guy says 15-20$ less than Ryzen 2600 so just go with the i5 9400f..
Here in India i5 9400f is 60$ cheaper than Ryzen 2600 and 95$ cheaper than 2600X..

I'm still confused to go with i5 9400f over 2600 just for the multi thread.. As I wanted it for playing , recording Games,Edit and upload to YouTube and, probably streaming Dota 2 in near future.
The price of i5 9400f is tempting but I'm not sure it can able to do stuff I mentioned above with close to ease..
I'm sure coming Ryzen 3000 is even high price due to high demand in here.
 

AndrewJacksonZA

Distinguished
Aug 11, 2011
450
1
18,785
ZA
It's funny how prices are different in different countries.. In one thread ,a guy says 15-20$ less than Ryzen 2600 so just go with the i5 9400f..
Here in India i5 9400f is 60$ cheaper than Ryzen 2600 and 95$ cheaper than 2600X..
*chuckle *
Yeah, it can be "interesting" at times.

Here in South Africa, the local online shop I usually buy from has the prices like this: (R = ZAR = South African Rands)
Ryzen 2600:___R3 300 / USD230 (Includes Tom Clancy's The Division 2 & World War Z)
Ryzen 2600X:__R3 700 /
USD260 (Includes Tom Clancy's The Division 2 & World War Z)
i5-9400F:_____R2 900 /
USD200
i5-9400:______R3 800 / USD270
 
Feb 13, 2019
25
0
30
*chuckle *
Yeah, it can be "interesting" at times.

Here in South Africa, the local online shop I usually buy from has the prices like this: (R = ZAR = South African Rands)
Ryzen 2600:___R3 300 / USD230 (Includes Tom Clancy's The Division 2 & World War Z)
Ryzen 2600X:__R3 700 /
USD260 (Includes Tom Clancy's The Division 2 & World War Z)
i5-9400F:_____R2 900 /
USD200
i5-9400:______R3 800 / USD270
Ya.. Crazy prices.
I still can't decide whether to pick i5 9400f even with that 65$ less than Ryzen 5 2600..
Why don't Intel think about multi threading boost and ryzen about single threading.

Life has many confused and difficult choices and now this one too.. lol

Some articles shows Ryzen has dropped prices.
Ryzen 5 2600 at 148$ from 168$
And here it still is at 236$(converted INR to Dollars) since past mont..
 
Last edited:
Honestly the 9400f isnt a bad cpu, so if its much cheaper, I would buy it. The 9400f still should multitask pretty well and do video editing and such, however a 2600 is generally better choice. The 9400f is slightly faster in gaming, but they are so close it doesnt really matter.
 
Feb 13, 2019
25
0
30
Honestly the 9400f isnt a bad cpu, so if its much cheaper, I would buy it. The 9400f still should multitask pretty well and do video editing and such, however a 2600 is generally better choice. The 9400f is slightly faster in gaming, but they are so close it doesnt really matter.
What if a year later 9400f can't do things that ryzen 2600 can( apart from gaming)..
 
I dont think in 1 year every program on the universe refuse will run on a 6 thread cpu.
Even in the close future, the I5 should do all of the non gaming multithreaded things a ryzen 2600 should, just slower.
I prefer the ryzen 5 2600 or x to the 9400f for every use, however if the ryzen 5 is a lot more money than the I5, the I5 can be a decent replacement unless you really need the extra threads. If you dont do a ton of video editing and the I5 is cheaper, i would concider the I5.
 

tennis2

Respectable
Most games stop core-scaling after 4-6 cores. Most common productivity programs don't core-scale past 4. AMD is doing a swell job of marketing their core race since Ryzen 1/2 don't have great frequency and IPC. The problem is that they're selling cores/threads that most people aren't using and probably won't use for a few years. Keep in mind that 1 core = 1.5 threads (12 thread CPU = 8 Core CPU). Also, the push will continue to be to offload as much onto the GPU as possible since consoles have anemic CPU cores. Next gen consoles will be worlds better, but the power emphasis will stay on packing as much GPU in as possible.
 
Feb 13, 2019
25
0
30
Most games stop core-scaling after 4-6 cores. Most common productivity programs don't core-scale past 4. AMD is doing a swell job of marketing their core race since Ryzen 1/2 don't have great frequency and IPC. The problem is that they're selling cores/threads that most people aren't using and probably won't use for a few years. Keep in mind that 1 core = 1.5 threads (12 thread CPU = 8 Core CPU). Also, the push will continue to be to offload as much onto the GPU as possible since consoles have anemic CPU cores. Next gen consoles will be worlds better, but the power emphasis will stay on packing as much GPU in as possible.
But what about the Benchmark scores which more favorable to Ryzen over Intel i5 except in Gaming..
 
Think realistically. Benchmarks are fine for comparison, but show little real world results. If you've got a 1080p 60Hz monitor, like most of the world still has, it's not going to make a hill of beans difference if Intel gets 200 fps and amd only gets 150 fps. You get 60. It's minimum and average frames that matter far more than maximum ever will, and amd has a much better gap between min/max than Intel usually does.

So that leaves productivity, in which case means time. Ryzen wins most races there, even the 1st gen 1700 was double the speeds of an i7-8700k, that's huge time savings when compiling. Or photo editing etc.

The 9400's are decent cpus, IF all you do is game, and not too heavily. But if you do anything else, the thread advantages Ryzen offers is a possibility you can't ignore. You can't see 20fps difference when over 100fps, only a benchmarker can, and it's probably above the refresh of the monitor, so it boils down to a choice of adaptability or paper win.
 
Pretty sure only dual core variants, of the i5, have ever had hyperthreading. Intel needs some leadership, and get their act together. Officially pricing the 9400f the same as a 9400 is just dirty. Using paste on a "generation" that was supposed to be soldered. :pfff: Calling these refreshed chips a new generation is kinda shady as well. It's not like they haven't done a refresh, and kept the same generational number before. (Haswell refresh )

Given the price/overall performance, I simply cannot see myself recommending the i5 9400f. Not to mention Intel's track record of changing chipsets and/or sockets. My 6700k is quite possibly getting replaced, by Ryzen 3000, this summer.
 
Reactions: rigg42

tennis2

Respectable
I've been seeing i5-9400F + B365 mobo combos for $190 total. That's pretty attractive. Price is the ultimate measure.

This definitely seems like the days of Pentium 4. Intel pushing an antiquated (Skylake) architecture to the brink to stay competitive (kinda like AMD in the GPU arena!). Except this time, they don't seem to have a Sandy Bridge ace up their sleeve. As accustomed as we've gotten to seeing Intel on the top of the heap for the past 8 years, I think Ryzen 3xxx will the nail in the coffin.
 
Last edited:

uguv

Distinguished
I've been seeing i5-9400F + B365 mobo combos for $190 total. That's pretty attractive. Price is the ultimate measure.

This definitely seems like the days of Pentium 4. Intel pushing an antiquated (Skylake) architecture to the brink to stay competitive (kinda like AMD in the GPU arena!). Except this time, they don't seem to have a Sandy Bridge ace up their sleeve. As accustomed as we've gotten to seeing Intel on the top of the heap for the past 8 years, I think Ryzen 3xxx will the nail in the coffin.
It does remind me of the P4 days as well, though it was Conroe's release that bumped Intel back ahead of AMD. Sandy, mixed with bulldozer's failure, just removed any doubt that there was a competition... until zen. It's nice to see Intel forced to move to 6 and 8-core parts to compete.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS