AMD Ryzen 5 7400 vs AMD Ryzen 7 260 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Ryzen 7 260 dominates the head-to-head comparison, winning 10 of the 11 recorded benchmark tests against the AMD Ryzen 5 7400. The margin is substantial across nearly every workload category, with the largest deltas appearing in integer math, floating point math, and data encryption.

The single biggest win for the Ryzen 7 260 comes in PassMark integer math, where it scores 96,737 versus 64,733 for the Ryzen 5 7400, a 49.4% advantage. Floating point math follows closely behind: the Ryzen 7 260 posts 59,462 against 40,784, a 45.8% lead. These two results indicate a clear computational throughput advantage for the 8-core part, which aligns with its 8-core, 16-thread configuration versus the 6-core, 12-thread setup of the Ryzen 5 7400.

Data encryption shows a 36.3% gap, with the Ryzen 7 260 scoring 20,267 versus 14,865. Random string sorting is nearly identical in margin at 36.2%, with scores of 42,383 and 31,110. Data compression favors the Ryzen 7 260 by 34.3%, posting 351,517 against 261,749. Extended instruction workloads give the Ryzen 7 260 a 33.2% edge, with 26,544 versus 19,924.

Multithreaded performance, as measured by PassMark multithread, shows the Ryzen 7 260 ahead by 29.3%, scoring 28,078 against 21,712. This is a meaningful gap for users running heavily threaded applications, as the Ryzen 7 260 consistently outpaces its rival in parallel workloads.

Even in single-threaded performance, where the Ryzen 5 7400 might be expected to compete more closely given its higher boost clock, the Ryzen 7 260 leads by 15%. The single-thread score is 3,736 for the Ryzen 7 260 versus 3,248 for the Ryzen 5 7400. Physics simulation gives the Ryzen 7 260 a modest 5.9% advantage, with 1,218 points against 1,150.

The only benchmark where the Ryzen 5 7400 wins is PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 79 versus 77, a 2.5% edge. This is the sole bright spot for the Ryzen 5 7400, and the margin is small enough to be considered a workload-specific anomaly rather than a general trend.

For context, the Ryzen 7 260 sits at the 88th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 43,717. The Ryzen 5 7400 also sits at the 88th percentile, with an average score of 42,055. The Ryzen 7 260's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7745 (average score 43,704, delta 0%), the AMD Ryzen 7 170 (43,689, delta 0.1%), and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 (43,431, delta 0.7%). The Ryzen 5 7400's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS (41,963, delta 0.2%), the Intel Core i7-14700T (41,914, delta 0.3%), and the Intel Core i7-12850HX (41,779, delta 0.7%). These figures show that while both CPUs are in the same percentile band, the Ryzen 7 260 maintains a higher absolute average score.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has higher single-threaded performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 leads in single-threaded workloads, scoring 3,736 in PassMark single-thread versus 3,248 for the AMD Ryzen 5 7400, a 15% advantage.

Q: How large is the multithreaded performance gap?

A: The Ryzen 7 260 scores 28,078 in PassMark multithread, while the Ryzen 5 7400 scores 21,712. This represents a 29.3% lead for the Ryzen 7 260.

Q: Is there any workload where the Ryzen 5 7400 wins?

A: Yes. The Ryzen 5 7400 wins the PassMark find prime numbers test, scoring 79 versus 77 for the Ryzen 7 260, a 2.5% margin. This is the only head-to-head test where the Ryzen 5 7400 comes out ahead.

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in average benchmark score?

A: The Ryzen 7 260 has an average benchmark score of 43,717, while the Ryzen 5 7400 has an average score of 42,055. Both CPUs sit at the 88th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: What is the difference in CPU core and thread counts?

A: The Ryzen 7 260 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ryzen 5 7400 has 6 cores and 12 threads. This 2-core, 4-thread difference contributes to the Ryzen 7 260's advantage in parallel workloads.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Ryzen 7 260 has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, while the Ryzen 5 7400 has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Despite the lower boost clock, the Ryzen 5 7400 still manages a narrow win in the find prime numbers test.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs share the same Zen 4 architecture but are built on different process nodes and target different market segments. The Ryzen 7 260 uses the Hawk Point codename on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the Ryzen 5 7400 uses the Raphael codename on a 5 nm TSMC process. This process advantage likely contributes to the Ryzen 7 260's higher clock speeds and lower thermal design power.

The Ryzen 7 260 is a mobile processor on AMD Socket FP8, while the Ryzen 5 7400 is a desktop processor on AMD Socket AM5. This distinction is fundamental: the Ryzen 7 260 is designed for laptops and compact systems, whereas the Ryzen 5 7400 targets traditional desktop builds. The Ryzen 5 7400 has an unlocked multiplier, allowing user overclocking, while the Ryzen 7 260 does not.

Cache configurations are identical in structure: both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The total cache capacity scales with core count, so the Ryzen 7 260 effectively has more aggregate L1 and L2 cache due to its 8 cores versus 6 cores.

Memory support is DDR5 for both, with dual-channel memory buses. The Ryzen 7 260 has a higher memory bandwidth at 89.6 GB/s, while the Ryzen 5 7400 is rated at 83.2 GB/s. The Ryzen 5 7400 supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen 7 260 does not.

PCIe connectivity differs significantly. The Ryzen 7 260 offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen 5 7400 offers Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only). This gives the desktop part a more capable expansion interface, both in terms of generation and lane count.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Ryzen 7 260 includes Radeon 780M graphics, while the Ryzen 5 7400 includes a more generic Radeon Graphics solution. The Ryzen 7 260's integrated graphics are part of its mobile-focused design, where a capable iGPU is more important for everyday use.

Transistor counts and die sizes reflect the different process nodes and design goals. The Ryzen 7 260 has 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, while the Ryzen 5 7400 has 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die. The larger transistor count for the Ryzen 7 260 is notable given its mobile market segment, suggesting a more integrated design with the Radeon 780M.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen 7 260 is the faster processor in nearly every measured workload. With 10 wins out of 11 head-to-head tests, it offers substantial advantages in integer math (49.4%), floating point math (45.8%), data encryption (36.3%), and multithreaded performance (29.3%). Users who prioritize raw computational throughput should select the Ryzen 7 260.

The Ryzen 5 7400's only victory comes in find prime numbers, where it edges ahead by 2.5%. This is a narrow, workload-specific result that does not offset the broader performance deficit. However, the Ryzen 5 7400 does offer ECC memory support, an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity, which are meaningful for certain desktop use cases.

Market segment is the deciding factor for most buyers. The Ryzen 7 260 is a mobile processor on Socket FP8, suited for laptops and compact systems where low power (45 W TDP) and integrated Radeon 780M graphics are important. The Ryzen 5 7400 is a desktop processor on Socket AM5, with a higher 65 W TDP, ECC support, and PCIe Gen 5 expansion, making it appropriate for traditional desktop builds where upgradeability and I/O flexibility matter.

From a pure performance standpoint, the Ryzen 7 260 is the clear winner. From a platform standpoint, the choice depends on whether the user needs a mobile solution or a desktop solution. The data shows that if performance is the sole criterion, the Ryzen 7 260 is the better pick.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specification fields:

• Cores: Ryzen 7 260 has 8, Ryzen 5 7400 has 6
• Threads: Ryzen 7 260 has 16, Ryzen 5 7400 has 12
• Base clock: 3.80 GHz for Ryzen 7 260, 3.30 GHz for Ryzen 5 7400
• Boost clock: 5.10 GHz for Ryzen 7 260, 4.30 GHz for Ryzen 5 7400
• TDP: 45 W for Ryzen 7 260, 65 W for Ryzen 5 7400
• Socket: AMD Socket FP8 for Ryzen 7 260, AMD Socket AM5 for Ryzen 5 7400
• Process node: 4 nm for Ryzen 7 260, 5 nm for Ryzen 5 7400
• Codename: Hawk Point for Ryzen 7 260, Raphael for Ryzen 5 7400
• Transistors: 25,000 million for Ryzen 7 260, 6,570 million for Ryzen 5 7400
• Die size: 178 mm² for Ryzen 7 260, 71 mm² for Ryzen 5 7400
• Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s for Ryzen 7 260, 83.2 GB/s for Ryzen 5 7400
• ECC memory: Not supported on Ryzen 7 260, supported on Ryzen 5 7400
• PCIe: Gen 4 with 20 lanes for Ryzen 7 260, Gen 5 with 24 lanes for Ryzen 5 7400
• Integrated graphics: Radeon 780M for Ryzen 7 260, Radeon Graphics for Ryzen 5 7400
• Market segment: Mobile for Ryzen 7 260, Desktop for Ryzen 5 7400
• Multiplier unlocked: No for Ryzen 7 260, Yes for Ryzen 5 7400
• Release date: 2025-01-05 for Ryzen 7 260, 2025-09-15 for Ryzen 5 7400

Where Each One Wins

AMD Ryzen 7 260 wins in:

• All compute-heavy workloads: integer math, floating point math, extended instructions
• Data compression and encryption tasks
• Multithreaded applications and parallel processing
• Single-threaded performance
• Physics simulation
• Random string sorting
• Mobile or compact systems where low TDP (45 W) and integrated Radeon 780M graphics are beneficial

AMD Ryzen 5 7400 wins in:

• Find prime numbers (a narrow 2.5% margin)
• Desktop platforms requiring ECC memory support
• Systems where an unlocked multiplier for overclocking is desired
• Configurations that leverage PCIe Gen 5 connectivity with 24 lanes
• Traditional desktop builds on Socket AM5 with upgrade path options

The use-case split is clear: choose the Ryzen 7 260 for maximum performance across the board, especially in mobile or low-power environments. Choose the Ryzen 5 7400 for desktop-specific features like ECC memory, overclocking, and newer PCIe generation, accepting a measurable performance trade-off in most workloads.