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 i7-9700K

2018

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while Ryzen 5 8400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 5 8400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 24,554).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 37.4 vs 81.0 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $303 MSRP).
❌46.2% higher power demand at 95W vs 65W.

Ryzen 5 8400F

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +35.1% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Costs $82 less on MSRP ($303 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
✅Delivers 116.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.0 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($303 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 95W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i7-9700K

2018

Ryzen 5 8400F

2024

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while Ryzen 5 8400F needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +35.1% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Costs $82 less on MSRP ($303 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
✅Delivers 116.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 81.0 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($303 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 95W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 5 8400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 24,554).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 37.4 vs 81.0 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $303 MSRP).
❌46.2% higher power demand at 95W vs 65W.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 5 8400F better than Core i7-9700K?

Yes. Ryzen 5 8400F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 35.1% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data, 70.5% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Ryzen 5 8400F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 35.1% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen 5 8400F is the better fit. You are getting 70.5% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Ryzen 5 8400F is the smarter buy today. Ryzen 5 8400F is $82 cheaper on MSRP at $303 MSRP versus $385 MSRP, and it gives you a 35.1% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 116.7% better value on MSRP (81.0 vs 37.4 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Ryzen 5 8400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2018), a healthier platform with AM5 and DDR5 instead of LGA1151, 33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 12 threads instead of 8/8. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

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.

Core i7-9700K Benchmark Check

Ryzen 5 8400F Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Ryzen 5 8400F
1080p
low	308 FPS	178 FPS
medium	278 FPS	151 FPS
high	231 FPS	123 FPS
ultra	182 FPS	102 FPS
1440p
low	270 FPS	151 FPS
medium	221 FPS	124 FPS
high	178 FPS	101 FPS
ultra	143 FPS	84 FPS
4K
low	170 FPS	81 FPS
medium	140 FPS	72 FPS
high	108 FPS	58 FPS
ultra	95 FPS	45 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Ryzen 5 8400F

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Ryzen 5 8400F
1080p
low	360 FPS	374 FPS
medium	321 FPS	316 FPS
high	291 FPS	278 FPS
ultra	259 FPS	238 FPS
1440p
low	324 FPS	326 FPS
medium	282 FPS	282 FPS
high	258 FPS	255 FPS
ultra	225 FPS	214 FPS
4K
low	249 FPS	243 FPS
medium	221 FPS	215 FPS
high	208 FPS	198 FPS
ultra	179 FPS	165 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Ryzen 5 8400F

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Ryzen 5 8400F
1080p
low	360 FPS	614 FPS
medium	360 FPS	614 FPS
high	360 FPS	614 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	614 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	614 FPS
medium	360 FPS	603 FPS
high	360 FPS	522 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	446 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	492 FPS
medium	360 FPS	431 FPS
high	360 FPS	369 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	303 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Ryzen 5 8400F

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Ryzen 5 8400F
1080p
low	360 FPS	614 FPS
medium	360 FPS	614 FPS
high	360 FPS	614 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	614 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	614 FPS
medium	360 FPS	614 FPS
high	360 FPS	614 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	601 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	610 FPS
medium	360 FPS	548 FPS
high	360 FPS	490 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	426 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Ryzen 5 8400F

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-9700K and Ryzen 5 8400F

Core i7-9700K

The Core i7-9700K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 14,397 points. Launch price was $374.

Ryzen 5 8400F

The Ryzen 5 8400F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 1 April 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Phoenix (2023−2024) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 4.2 GHz, with boost up to 4.7 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: AM5. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 24,554 points. Launch price was $170.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i7-9700K packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the Ryzen 5 8400F offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Core i7-9700K has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K versus 4.7 GHz on the Ryzen 5 8400F — a 4.2% clock advantage for the Core i7-9700K (base: 3.6 GHz vs 4.2 GHz). The Core i7-9700K uses the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen 5 8400F uses Phoenix (2023−2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700K scores 14,397 against the Ryzen 5 8400F's 24,554 — a 52.2% lead for the Ryzen 5 8400F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-9700K vs 16 MB (total) on the Ryzen 5 8400F.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Ryzen 5 8400F
Cores / Threads	8 / 8+33%	6 / 12
Boost Clock	4.9 GHz+4%	4.7 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz	4.2 GHz+17%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	16 MB (total)+33%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	1 MB (per core)+300%
Process	14 nm	4 nm-71%
Architecture	Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)	Phoenix (2023−2024)
PassMark	14,397	24,554+71%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-9700K uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Ryzen 5 8400F uses AM5 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Ryzen 5 8400F
Socket	LGA1151	AM5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
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 i7-9700K) / not specified (Ryzen 5 8400F). The Core i7-9700K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the Ryzen 5 8400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-9700K targets Desktop.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Ryzen 5 8400F
Integrated GPU	Yes	—
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics 630	—
Unlocked	Yes	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	—
Target Use	Desktop	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i7-9700K launched at $385 MSRP, while the Ryzen 5 8400F debuted at $303. On MSRP ($385 vs $303), the Ryzen 5 8400F is $82 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700K delivers 37.4 pts/$ vs 81.0 pts/$ for the Ryzen 5 8400F — making the Ryzen 5 8400F the 73.7% better value option.