AMD Ryzen 5 8400F vs AMD Ryzen 7 6800H Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 6800H and AMD Ryzen 5 8400F are two very different interpretations of the Zen architecture, separated by process node, core count, and market segment. The 6800H is a mobile part built for laptops, while the 8400F is a desktop processor. Despite these differences, their average benchmark scores are remarkably close, with the 6800H posting 25201 and the 8400F posting 25005. Both sit at the 77th percentile of all CPUs, and their closest rivals reflect this parity: the 6800H trades blows with the Ryzen 7 7735HS (0.2% delta) and the Ryzen 9 6900HS (-0.3%), while the 8400F is nearly identical to the Ryzen 5 7500F (0.2%) and the Intel Core i7-11850H (0.3%). The data reveals a split personality: the 8400F dominates in lightly-threaded and single-core workloads, while the 6800H often takes the lead in heavy multi-threaded and data-processing tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single largest performance gap in this comparison appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the 8400F scores 20851 against the 6800H's 13094. That is a 37.2% advantage for the desktop part, a decisive margin that underscores the efficiency of the 4nm Zen 4 architecture. The single-core Cinebench R23 result is even more lopsided: the 8400F's 2943 beats the 6800H's 1542 by 47.6%. This is the clearest signal of architectural superiority, as the 8400F's higher base clock of 4.20 GHz (versus 3.20 GHz) and newer Zen 4 cores simply outclass the older Zen 3+ design in per-thread performance.

The 8400F also wins the 3DMark single-thread test, scoring 951 versus 872 (an 8.3% margin). In 3DMark 2-thread and 4-thread tests, the 8400F again prevails, scoring 1874 and 3563 compared to 1695 and 3214, respectively (9.6% and 9.8% wins). PassMark single-thread results confirm the trend: 3685 for the 8400F versus 3212 for the 6800H, a 12.8% gap. Cinebench R15 single-core shows an 18.1% advantage for the 8400F (296 versus 242.5), and PassMark physics shows a 21.5% lead (1332 versus 1046). The 8400F also wins PassMark extended instructions (22175 vs 20114, a 9.3% margin), PassMark random string sorting (34604 vs 30668, 11.4%), PassMark find prime numbers (89 vs 57, a 36% gap), and PassMark multi-thread (24389 vs 23060, 5.4%).

However, the 6800H holds its ground in several multi-core scenarios. Its 8 cores and 16 threads give it a raw throughput edge that the 8400F's 6 cores and 12 threads cannot always overcome. In 3DMark 16-thread, the 6800H scores 6560 against 6091, a 7.7% win. In 3DMark max-thread, it wins 6532 to 6165 (6.0%). The 3DMark 8-thread test is closer, with the 6800H taking it 5392 to 5275 (2.2%). Cinebench R15 multi-core is nearly a tie, with the 6800H winning 2136 to 2101 (1.7%).

The most striking reversal comes in PassMark integer math. The 6800H scores 85397, which is 15.4% higher than the 8400F's 74021. Floating-point math also favors the 6800H: 47989 versus 46217 (3.8%). PassMark data encryption is another strong point for the 6800H, which scores 18260 against 16646 (9.7%). Data compression is a narrow 6800H win, 293929 versus 288158 (2.0%). Overall, the 8400F wins 13 of the 21 benchmark comparisons, while the 6800H takes 8.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is decisively faster. It wins the 3DMark single-thread test (951 vs 872), Cinebench R23 single-core (2943 vs 1542, a 47.6% margin), and PassMark single-thread (3685 vs 3212). Its higher base clock and newer Zen 4 architecture are the primary factors.

Q: How does the multi-core performance compare?

A: The results are mixed. The 8400F wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by a wide margin (20851 vs 13094, 37.2%), but the 6800H wins 3DMark 16-thread (6560 vs 6091) and 3DMark max-thread (6532 vs 6165). The 6800H also dominates PassMark integer math (85397 vs 74021) and data encryption (18260 vs 16646).

Q: Which chip has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 6800H has 8 cores and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has 6 cores and 12 threads. The 6800H's two extra cores and four extra threads help it in specific multi-threaded tests.

Q: Are these processors from the same generation?

A: No. The 6800H is from the 6000 series, based on the Zen 3+ architecture (Rembrandt) on a 6nm process. The 8400F is from the 8000 series, based on the Zen 4 architecture (Phoenix) on a 4nm process. The 8400F has a newer transistor design.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The 8400F has a higher theoretical memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, while the 6800H is rated at 76.8 GB/s. Both support DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 6800H includes a Radeon 680M integrated GPU. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has no integrated graphics (N/A), meaning it requires a discrete graphics card for display output.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is the clear choice for single-threaded performance and lightly-threaded applications. Its dominance in Cinebench R23 single-core (2943 vs 1542) and PassMark single-thread (3685 vs 3212) makes it ideal for tasks that rely on per-core speed, such as legacy software, certain game engines, and responsiveness in daily desktop use. The 11.4% lead in random string sorting (34604 vs 30668) and the 9.3% win in extended instructions (22175 vs 20114) also point to strengths in encryption and specialized instruction sets. The 8400F's 36% advantage in find prime numbers (89 vs 57) is a strong indicator for mathematical and scientific single-threaded workloads. Its 21.5% lead in PassMark physics (1332 vs 1046) suggests better performance in physics simulations that are not fully multi-threaded.

The AMD Ryzen 7 6800H wins where raw thread count and data throughput matter. Its 15.4% lead in integer math (85397 vs 74021) and 9.7% lead in data encryption (18260 vs 16646) show an advantage in data-heavy server-like tasks, despite its older architecture. The 7.7% win in 3DMark 16-thread (6560 vs 6091) and 6.0% win in 3DMark max-thread (6532 vs 6165) indicate that its 8 cores scale better in highly parallel 3D rendering workloads. The 2.0% win in data compression (293929 vs 288158) and 3.8% win in floating-point math (47989 vs 46217) round out a profile that favors content creation and batch processing over interactive speed. The 6800H is the better fit for users who prioritize multi-threaded productivity over single-core responsiveness.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in their specifications. The 6800H has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the 8400F has 6 cores and 12 threads. The 6800H's base clock is 3.20 GHz, which is significantly lower than the 8400F's 4.20 GHz. Both share the same 4.70 GHz boost clock. The thermal design power (TDP) also differs, with the mobile 6800H rated at 45W and the desktop 8400F rated at 65W.

The socket is a major differentiator: the 6800H uses AMD Socket FP7, while the 8400F uses AMD Socket AM5. The 6800H has a larger die size of 208 mm², while the 8400F is smaller at 178 mm². The cache layout differs in the L2 cache: the 6800H has 512 KB per core, while the 8400F has 1 MB per core. Both share the same L1 cache (64 KB per core) and L3 cache (16 MB shared). The 8400F has a higher memory bandwidth rating (83.2 GB/s vs 76.8 GB/s). The 8400F has an unlocked multiplier, while the 6800H does not.

The 6800H includes a Radeon 680M integrated GPU, whereas the 8400F has no integrated graphics. The 8400F has a launch MSRP of $170. Its release date is listed as 2024-03-31. The 6800H has no release date or MSRP in the data. Both have the same PCIe configuration: Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Neither supports ECC memory.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is substantial. The 6800H is built on the Zen 3+ architecture, codenamed Rembrandt, which uses a 6nm process node from TSMC. The 8400F uses the newer Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Phoenix, on a 4nm process node from the same foundry. This process shrink is a key reason for the 8400F's single-core superiority, as it allows for higher clocks at similar power.

The 8400F's transistor count is listed at 25,000 million, while the 6800H's transistor count is not provided. The die size difference (178 mm² for the 8400F versus 208 mm² for the 6800H) is notable, as the smaller die with more transistors indicates a much denser design on the 4nm node. The 8400F's larger L2 cache (1 MB per core vs 512 KB per core) contributes to its lower-latency performance in single-threaded tasks.

The 6800H is a mobile processor, designed for laptops in the 6000 series, and its 45W TDP reflects that power-conscious design. The 8400F is a desktop part with a 65W TDP, allowing it to sustain higher clocks. The 6800H's Rembrandt architecture includes integrated Radeon 680M graphics, a feature absent from the 8400F's Phoenix design, which is tailored for desktop systems with discrete GPUs. The 8400F's unlocked multiplier also hints at its desktop enthusiast positioning, whereas the 6800H is a fixed-function mobile chip. These architectural differences—process node, cache size, and core complexity—explain why the 8400F excels in single-threaded and lightly-threaded tests, while the 6800H can still leverage its higher core count to win in specific multi-threaded scenarios.