AMD EPYC 9174F vs Intel Core i5-9400F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unambiguous picture: the AMD EPYC 9174F wins every single head-to-head comparison against the Intel Core i5-9400F. Across eight recorded tests, the EPYC 9174F takes all eight victories, with the Intel chip failing to secure a single win. The margins are substantial, but they vary considerably depending on the workload type.

In Cinebench R15, the multicore test shows the EPYC 9174F scoring 4686 against the i5-9400F's 810, a delta of -82.7% from the Intel chip's perspective. This means the AMD processor delivers roughly 5.8 times the multicore throughput. The single-core test in R15 tells a similar story: 661 versus 114, again a -82.8% delta, indicating the EPYC's per-core advantage is nearly as large as its multicore lead.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds relentlessly. The multicore score of 19525 for the EPYC 9174F dwarfs the 3376 of the i5-9400F, with the same -82.7% delta. In single-core R20, the AMD chip posts 2756 against 476, again matching that -82.7% gap. Cinebench R23 repeats the exact same delta: 46489 versus 8040 in multicore, and 6563 versus 1135 in single-core. The consistency of that -82.7% figure across every Cinebench iteration suggests the architectural advantage is uniform across rendering workloads, regardless of the benchmark version.

Geekbench offers a slightly different perspective. In multicore, the EPYC 9174F scores 17363 against 5106, a -70.6% delta. This smaller margin compared to Cinebench indicates that Geekbench's multicore test is less sensitive to the core-count and thread-count disparity, though the AMD part still dominates. The single-core Geekbench result narrows the gap further: 2244 versus 1344, a -40.1% delta. This is the closest the Intel chip comes to competitiveness, yet even here the EPYC 9174F leads by a wide margin.

Notably, the EPYC 9174F's single-core advantage is not merely a function of clock speed. The i5-9400F boosts to 4.10 GHz, while the EPYC 9174F boosts to 4.40 GHz, a difference that accounts for only a fraction of the observed performance gap. The architectural efficiency of Zen 4 clearly contributes far more than raw frequency in these tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors could hardly be more different in their fundamental designs. The Intel Core i5-9400F is built on the Coffee Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 14 nm process node. It features 6 cores and 6 threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The AMD EPYC 9174F belongs to the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa, fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm node. It offers 16 cores and 32 threads, running at a base clock of 4.10 GHz and boosting to 4.40 GHz.

The transistor counts and die sizes reflect the generational leap. The EPYC 9174F contains 52,560 million transistors spread across 8 dies, each measuring 72 mm². The Intel chip's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database, but the process node difference alone suggests a significant density advantage for the AMD part. The 5 nm process from TSMC allows for much higher transistor density compared to Intel's 14 nm node, which directly contributes to the EPYC's higher performance per clock.

Cache hierarchies differ dramatically. The i5-9400F has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 9 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 9174F also has 64 KB of L1 per core, but its L2 expands to 1 MB per core, and its shared L3 cache is a massive 256 MB. This 28-fold difference in L3 capacity is central to the EPYC's ability to handle large datasets without resorting to slower memory access.

Memory support further separates the two. The Intel chip supports DDR4 with a dual-channel memory bus, delivering 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD part supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus, achieving 460.8 GB/s. That is more than ten times the memory bandwidth, which matters enormously for server workloads that stream data continuously. The EPYC 9174F also supports ECC memory, while the i5-9400F does not.

PCIe connectivity shows the same scale of difference. The Intel chip provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The EPYC 9174F offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes. This makes the AMD part suitable for massive I/O configurations, while the Intel chip is limited to consumer-level expansion. The sockets reflect their intended markets: Intel Socket 1151 for desktop, AMD Socket SP5 for server platforms.

The production status and release dates align with their roles. The i5-9400F is end-of-life, released on 2019-01-07, while the EPYC 9174F is active, released on 2022-11-09. The Intel chip targets the desktop market segment, the AMD chip targets server and workstation use. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, and neither includes integrated graphics.

The Verdict

The data leaves no room for nuance in raw performance: the AMD EPYC 9174F is categorically faster than the Intel Core i5-9400F in every recorded benchmark. The multicore deltas hover around -82.7% in Cinebench and -70.6% in Geekbench, while the single-core deltas range from -40.1% to -82.8%. Anyone choosing the Intel chip for performance reasons would be doing so against the evidence.

However, the intended use cases are so different that a direct comparison is somewhat artificial. The i5-9400F is a desktop processor with a 65 W TDP, designed for mainstream consumer builds. The EPYC 9174F is a server processor with a 320 W TDP, designed for data centers and high-end workstations. The launch MSRP of the EPYC 9174F is $3850, and its platform costs far more than a consumer motherboard. The Intel chip, by contrast, sits in a budget desktop tier.

For a desktop user building a lightweight system, the i5-9400F offers adequate performance with low power draw and modest platform requirements. Its 6 cores and 6 threads handle everyday computing, light productivity, and older games without issue. Its 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs indicates it sits above the median, and its nearest rivals are similarly positioned consumer parts like the Intel Core i7-10750H and Core i5-8500.

For a server operator or workstation user, the EPYC 9174F is the only sensible choice from this pairing. Its 16 cores and 32 threads, 256 MB of L3 cache, twelve-channel DDR5, and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes are server-grade features that the Intel chip simply cannot match. Its 67th percentile ranking is slightly below the Intel chip's 68th, but that ranking aggregates all benchmarks, including those where the EPYC's server-oriented design does not directly translate to consumer test workloads.

The verdict hinges on workload, not merit. If the question is which CPU delivers more performance, the answer is unambiguous: the EPYC 9174F wins all 8 head-to-head tests. If the question is which CPU belongs in a given system, the answer depends entirely on whether that system is a desktop or a server.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9174F has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core i5-9400F has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 9174F in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The EPYC 9174F scores 46489 versus 8040 for the i5-9400F, a delta of -82.7% from the Intel chip's perspective.

Q: What is the smallest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The smallest gap is in Geekbench single-core, where the EPYC 9174F scores 2244 against 1344 for the i5-9400F, a delta of -40.1%.

Q: Do these processors support the same memory type?

A: No. The Intel Core i5-9400F supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus, while the AMD EPYC 9174F supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 9174F has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core i5-9400F has 9 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400F is end-of-life, while the AMD EPYC 9174F is active and still in production.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9174F wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database. This includes all Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23) in both multicore and single-core tests, as well as Geekbench in both multicore and single-core. The largest relative advantage appears in Cinebench tests, where the delta is consistently -82.7% to -82.8%. The smallest relative advantage is in Geekbench single-core at -40.1%.

The Intel Core i5-9400F does not win a single head-to-head test. Its strengths are qualitative rather than quantitative. It has a much lower TDP of 65 W compared to 320 W, making it suitable for compact desktop builds with modest cooling requirements. Its socket, Intel Socket 1151, is compatible with a wide range of consumer motherboards. Its DDR4 memory support and dual-channel bus are standard for desktop systems, and its 42.7 GB/s memory bandwidth, while far below the EPYC's 460.8 GB/s, is sufficient for typical consumer workloads.

For a desktop user, the i5-9400F wins on platform practicality. It is end-of-life, but that means used systems are available at lower prices. Its 6 cores handle everyday tasks, and its single-thread performance, while lower than the EPYC's, is still adequate for most applications. The data shows it sits at the 68th percentile among all CPUs, meaning it outperforms a majority of processors in the database.

For a server or workstation user, the EPYC 9174F wins on every measurable performance axis. Its 16 cores and 32 threads excel at parallel workloads. Its 256 MB L3 cache reduces memory latency for large working sets. Its twelve-channel DDR5 with ECC support ensures data integrity in critical applications. Its 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes enable massive storage arrays and high-speed networking. The 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth is essential for data-intensive server workloads.

The use-case split is clear: the i5-9400F serves the desktop market, while the EPYC 9174F serves the server market. In a direct performance comparison, the EPYC 9174F is the undisputed winner. In a platform comparison, each processor wins within its own domain. The data does not support any scenario where the i5-9400F outperforms the EPYC 9174F in raw compute, but it does support the notion that the i5-9400F is a reasonable choice for lightweight desktop use where the EPYC's power and platform requirements would be excessive.