
A4-9120

Core i5-12400F
A4-9120 vs Core i5-12400F Performance Spectrum
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
A4-9120 vs Core i5-12400F FPS Benchmarks
Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.
Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
A4-9120 vs Core i5-12400F: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
A4-9120
2017Why buy it
- ✅Draws 1W instead of 65W, a 64W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon R3, while Core i5-12400F needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-12400F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (1,222 vs 19,532).
- ❌Older platform position on BGA with DDR4, while Core i5-12400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-12400F.
Core i5-12400F
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +570.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of BGA and DDR4.
- ✅150% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike A4-9120.
Trade-offs
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $174 MSRP, while A4-9120 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌6400% higher power demand at 65W vs 1W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while A4-9120 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i5-12400F better than A4-9120?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
A4-9120 vs Core i5-12400F Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

A4-9120
The A4-9120 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: BGA. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,222 points. Launch price was $50.

Core i5-12400F
The Core i5-12400F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 18 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 19,532 points. Launch price was $180.
Processing Power
The A4-9120 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Core i5-12400F offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Core i5-12400F has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the A4-9120 versus 4.4 GHz on the Core i5-12400F — a 55.1% clock advantage for the Core i5-12400F (base: 2.2 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The A4-9120 uses the Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Core i5-12400F uses Alder Lake-S (2022) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the A4-9120 scores 1,222 against the Core i5-12400F's 19,532 — a 176.4% lead for the Core i5-12400F. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 350 vs 1,700, a 131.7% lead for the Core i5-12400F that directly translates to higher frame rates.
| Feature | A4-9120 | Core i5-12400F |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 6 / 12+200% |
| Boost Clock | 2.5 GHz | 4.4 GHz+76% |
| Base Clock | 2.2 GHz | 2.5 GHz+14% |
| L3 Cache | — | 18 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1.25 MB (per core)+25% |
| Process | 28 nm | Intel 7 nm-75% |
| Architecture | Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) | Alder Lake-S (2022) |
| PassMark | 1,222 | 19,532+1498% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | — | 12,380 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 350 | 1,700+386% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 657 |
Memory & Platform
The A4-9120 uses the BGA socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i5-12400F uses LGA1700 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2133 on the A4-9120 versus DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-12400F — the Core i5-12400F supports 125% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i5-12400F supports up to 128 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 1500% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (A4-9120) vs 2 (Core i5-12400F). PCIe lanes: 8 (A4-9120) vs 20 (Core i5-12400F) — the Core i5-12400F offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.
| Feature | A4-9120 | Core i5-12400F |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | BGA | LGA1700 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2133 | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200+125% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB | 128 GB+1500% |
| RAM Channels | 1 | 2+100% |
| ECC Support | No | No |
| PCIe Lanes | 8 | 20+150% |
Advanced Features
Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-9120) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i5-12400F). The A4-9120 includes integrated graphics (Radeon R3), while the Core i5-12400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-9120 targets Entry Laptop, Core i5-12400F targets Gaming Performance/Value. Direct competitor: A4-9120 rivals Celeron N3350; Core i5-12400F rivals Ryzen 5 5600.
| Feature | A4-9120 | Core i5-12400F |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Radeon R3 | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | VT-x, VT-d, EPT |
| Target Use | Entry Laptop | Gaming Performance/Value |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.















