
Core i5-9400F
Popular choices:

Core i7-4930K
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.
Core i5-9400F
2019Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +12.1% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $488 less on MSRP ($182 MSRP vs $670 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 271.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 52.0 vs 14.0 PassMark/$ ($182 MSRP vs $670 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 130W, a 65W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (9 MB vs 12 MB).
Core i7-4930K
2013Why buy it
- ✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 9 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-9400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (9,379 vs 9,462).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.0 vs 52.0 PassMark/$ ($670 MSRP vs $182 MSRP).
- ❌100% higher power demand at 130W vs 65W.
Core i5-9400F
2019Core i7-4930K
2013Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +12.1% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $488 less on MSRP ($182 MSRP vs $670 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 271.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 52.0 vs 14.0 PassMark/$ ($182 MSRP vs $670 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 130W, a 65W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Why buy it
- ✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 9 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (9 MB vs 12 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-9400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (9,379 vs 9,462).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.0 vs 52.0 PassMark/$ ($670 MSRP vs $182 MSRP).
- ❌100% higher power demand at 130W vs 65W.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i5-9400F better than Core i7-4930K?
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?
Games Benchmarks
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core i5-9400F | Core i7-4930K |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 179 FPS | 168 FPS |
| medium | 144 FPS | 144 FPS |
| high | 115 FPS | 116 FPS |
| ultra | 91 FPS | 95 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 152 FPS | 141 FPS |
| medium | 122 FPS | 118 FPS |
| high | 96 FPS | 93 FPS |
| ultra | 75 FPS | 76 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 71 FPS | 64 FPS |
| medium | 61 FPS | 57 FPS |
| high | 48 FPS | 45 FPS |
| ultra | 37 FPS | 35 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-9400F | Core i7-4930K |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 237 FPS | 212 FPS |
| medium | 237 FPS | 186 FPS |
| high | 237 FPS | 171 FPS |
| ultra | 222 FPS | 139 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 237 FPS | 189 FPS |
| medium | 237 FPS | 164 FPS |
| high | 226 FPS | 152 FPS |
| ultra | 202 FPS | 128 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 237 FPS | 163 FPS |
| medium | 216 FPS | 143 FPS |
| high | 196 FPS | 128 FPS |
| ultra | 170 FPS | 95 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-9400F | Core i7-4930K |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 237 FPS | 234 FPS |
| medium | 237 FPS | 234 FPS |
| high | 237 FPS | 234 FPS |
| ultra | 237 FPS | 234 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 237 FPS | 234 FPS |
| medium | 237 FPS | 234 FPS |
| high | 237 FPS | 234 FPS |
| ultra | 237 FPS | 234 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 237 FPS | 234 FPS |
| medium | 226 FPS | 234 FPS |
| high | 192 FPS | 234 FPS |
| ultra | 152 FPS | 234 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-9400F | Core i7-4930K |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 237 FPS | 234 FPS |
| medium | 237 FPS | 234 FPS |
| high | 237 FPS | 234 FPS |
| ultra | 237 FPS | 234 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 237 FPS | 234 FPS |
| medium | 237 FPS | 234 FPS |
| high | 237 FPS | 234 FPS |
| ultra | 237 FPS | 234 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 237 FPS | 234 FPS |
| medium | 237 FPS | 234 FPS |
| high | 237 FPS | 234 FPS |
| ultra | 237 FPS | 234 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-9400F and Core i7-4930K

Core i5-9400F
Core i5-9400F
The Core i5-9400F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 8 January 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture. It features 6 cores and 6 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 4.1 GHz. L3 cache: 9 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2666. Passmark benchmark score: 9,462 points. Launch price was $182.

Core i7-4930K
Core i7-4930K
The Core i7-4930K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge-E (2013) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 9,379 points. Launch price was $670.
Processing Power
The Core i5-9400F packs 6 cores / 6 threads, matching the Core i7-4930K's 6 cores. Boost clocks reach 4.1 GHz on the Core i5-9400F versus 3.9 GHz on the Core i7-4930K — a 5% clock advantage for the Core i5-9400F (base: 2.9 GHz vs 3.4 GHz). The Core i5-9400F uses the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i7-4930K uses Ivy Bridge-E (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-9400F scores 9,462 against the Core i7-4930K's 9,379 — a 0.9% lead for the Core i5-9400F. L3 cache: 9 MB (total) on the Core i5-9400F vs 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-4930K.
| Feature | Core i5-9400F | Core i7-4930K |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 6 | 6 / 12 |
| Boost Clock | 4.1 GHz+5% | 3.9 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.9 GHz | 3.4 GHz+17% |
| L3 Cache | 9 MB (total) | 12 MB (total)+33% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 256 kB (per core) |
| Process | 14 nm-36% | 22 nm |
| Architecture | Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) | Ivy Bridge-E (2013) |
| PassMark | 9,462 | 9,379 |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-9400F uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i7-4930K uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core i5-9400F | Core i7-4930K |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1151 | LGA2011 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2666 | — |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB | — |
| RAM Channels | 2 | — |
| ECC Support | No | — |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | — |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-9400F) / not specified (Core i7-4930K). Primary use case: Core i5-9400F targets Desktop.
| Feature | Core i5-9400F | Core i7-4930K |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | — |
| Target Use | Desktop | — |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-9400F launched at $182 MSRP, while the Core i7-4930K debuted at $670. On MSRP ($182 vs $670), the Core i5-9400F is $488 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-9400F delivers 52.0 pts/$ vs 14.0 pts/$ for the Core i7-4930K — making the Core i5-9400F the 115.1% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-9400F | Core i7-4930K |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $182-73% | $670 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.0+271% | 14.0 |
| Release Date | 2019 | 2013 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












