AMD Ryzen 5 8400F vs Intel Core 3 201E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive sweep. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with no single category going to the Intel Core 3 201E. The largest margin appears in PassMark’s extended instructions test, where the AMD part scores 22,175 versus 11,035, a 101% advantage. That is the only test where the Ryzen doubles the Intel score. The next biggest gap is in random string sorting: 34,604 versus 17,783, a 94.6% lead.

Data encryption also shows a wide split. The 8400F scores 16,646 against 8,931, which is 86.4% higher. Integer math follows with 74,021 versus 43,894, a 68.6% edge. The data compression test lands at 288,158 versus 164,160, a 75.5% gap. These are not marginal wins; the AMD processor is consistently ahead by large margins in workload-heavy tasks.

The Cinebench suite tells a similar story. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 8400F records 20,851 while the Core 3 201E records 12,613, a 65.3% difference. Single-core R23 shows 2,943 versus 1,780, also 65.3%. The R20 multi-core test gives 8,757 versus 5,297, and R20 single-core gives 1,236 versus 747, a 65.5% gap. R15 multi-core is 2,101 versus 1,271 and R15 single-core is 296 versus 179, both around 65.3% to 65.4%. The consistency of these deltas across Cinebench versions indicates a fundamental throughput difference rather than a test-specific quirk.

The smallest recorded win for the AMD part is in PassMark single-thread performance: 3,685 versus 3,482, a 5.8% edge. That is the closest result in the entire dataset. The physics test is the next smallest gap: 1,332 versus 1,141, a 16.7% lead. Floating point math shows 46,217 versus 33,260, a 39% margin. Prime number finding gives 89 versus 57, a 56.1% edge. Multi-thread PassMark is 24,389 versus 14,839, a 64.4% lead.

The average benchmark score reinforces the overall picture. The 8400F averages 25,005 across its recorded tests, placing it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 3 201E averages 19,056, placing it in the 73rd percentile. That 5,949-point gap in average score is substantial. The nearest rivals for the AMD part include the Ryzen 5 7500F at 24,964 (0.2% behind) and the Core i7-13620H at 24,911 (0.4% behind). The Intel part’s nearest rivals include the Ryzen 5 7535HS at 19,047 (0% delta) and the Core i5-12400F at 19,039 (0.1% behind). The 8400F sits in a higher performance tier entirely.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different manufacturing and design generations. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F uses a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel Core 3 201E uses a 10 nm process at Intel’s own fabs. The AMD chip is built on Zen 4 architecture with the Phoenix codename, part of the 8000 series. The Intel chip uses Bartlett Lake, listed in the database as Core 3 generation with no architecture field specified beyond the codename.

Core counts differ. The 8400F has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. That is a 50% core advantage for the AMD part and a 50% thread advantage. The base clock on the AMD is 4.20 GHz versus 3.60 GHz on the Intel. The boost clock is 4.70 GHz on the AMD versus 4.80 GHz on the Intel, so the Intel chip boosts 0.10 GHz higher, but that does not compensate for the core deficit in any recorded benchmark.

Cache layouts are distinct. The 8400F uses 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. The Core 3 201E uses 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. Per-core cache is larger on the Intel part, but the AMD part has more total L3. Transistor count for the AMD is listed at 25,000 million, while the Intel field is null in the database. Die size is 178 mm² for the AMD and 163 mm² for the Intel.

Memory support differs. The AMD processor supports DDR5 only, with dual-channel memory and a recorded bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The Intel processor supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, with a recorded bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported on the AMD part but is supported on the Intel part. PCIe generations differ: the AMD uses Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics are absent on the AMD part, listed as N/A. The Intel part includes UHD Graphics 730. The AMD has an unlocked multiplier; the Intel does not. Sockets differ: AMD Socket AM5 for the 8400F, Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 3 201E. The AMD release date is 2024-03-31, the Intel release date is 2025-01-12. Part numbers are 100-000001591 for the AMD and SRVTR for the Intel.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to one clear outcome: the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F outperforms the Intel Core 3 201E in every measured benchmark. The 17-0 win count is unambiguous. Multi-core workloads show the largest gaps, driven by the AMD’s extra two cores and four threads. The 65.3% to 65.5% margins in Cinebench tests across three versions confirm that the advantage scales consistently with thread count.

Single-thread performance is closer, with only a 5.8% difference in PassMark single-thread and 65.3% in Cinebench R23 single-core. The Cinebench single-core gap is larger than the PassMark gap, which suggests the AMD core has a stronger per-thread execution advantage in that specific renderer. The Intel chip’s higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz does not translate into a win in any single-threaded test.

The Intel part does have advantages in platform features. It supports ECC memory, includes integrated graphics, offers both DDR4 and DDR5 memory compatibility, and has PCIe Gen 5. The AMD part lacks ECC, lacks integrated graphics, only supports DDR5, and uses PCIe Gen 4. For a system that needs ECC memory or relies on integrated graphics for display output, the Intel part has a functional edge. For raw compute performance, the AMD part is ahead in every recorded metric.

The average benchmark score of 25,005 versus 19,056 places the AMD part in the 77th percentile versus the Intel’s 73rd. The AMD also sits close to the Ryzen 5 7500F, which is only 0.2% behind in average score, meaning the 8400F is effectively at parity with that well-regarded part. The Intel sits near the Core i5-12400F, just 0.1% ahead, indicating it is a more mainstream performer.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F wins all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 20,851 versus 12,613, a 65.3% lead. PassMark multi-thread shows 24,389 versus 14,839, a 64.4% edge.

Q: How close is single-thread performance?

A: The closest result in the entire dataset is PassMark single-thread, where the AMD scores 3,685 versus 3,482, a 5.8% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a larger gap: 2,943 versus 1,780, a 65.3% difference.

Q: Does the Intel processor have any feature that the AMD lacks?

A: Yes. The Intel Core 3 201E supports ECC memory, includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 730), supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, and uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The AMD supports only DDR5, has no integrated graphics, no ECC, and uses PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E boosts to 4.80 GHz, which is 0.10 GHz higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F’s 4.70 GHz. The AMD has a higher base clock at 4.20 GHz versus 3.60 GHz.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F averages 25,005, placing in the 77th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 3 201E averages 19,056, placing in the 73rd percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F wins every recorded compute benchmark. That includes all Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23) for both single and multi-core, all PassMark CPU tests (data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime numbers, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, single-thread), and all 3DMark tests from the database (16 threads, 2 threads, 4 threads, 8 threads, max threads, single thread). The margin is largest in extended instructions at 101%, followed by random string sorting at 94.6% and data encryption at 86.4%.

The Intel Core 3 201E does not win any benchmark in the head-to-head set. Its functional advantages are not in performance but in platform capabilities. ECC memory support makes it suitable for error-sensitive workloads, a feature the AMD lacks. Integrated graphics allow basic display output without a discrete GPU, which the AMD cannot do. Memory flexibility with both DDR4 and DDR5 support gives the Intel part broader compatibility with existing memory inventories. PCIe Gen 5 provides newer interconnect bandwidth, though the AMD’s Gen 4 with 20 lanes offers more lane count.

For users prioritizing raw CPU throughput in rendering, encryption, compression, or math-heavy tasks, the AMD part is the clear choice based on the data. For users who require ECC, integrated graphics, or DDR4 compatibility, the Intel part has the only path forward. The 60 W TDP on the Intel versus 65 W on the AMD is a minor difference, but the Intel’s 4-core design draws less power under load in absolute terms. The AMD’s 6-core design delivers more work per watt in the recorded results, but the Intel’s lower TDP may fit tighter power envelopes.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Ryzen 5 8400F | Intel Core 3 201E |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 4 |

| Threads | 12 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 4.20 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.70 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 60 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Not listed |

| Codename | Phoenix | Bartlett Lake |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | 163 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 16 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Release Date | 2024-03-31 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | $170 | $134 |

The AMD part uses a smaller process node, more cores, more threads, more L3 cache, higher memory bandwidth, and an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part uses a larger process node, fewer cores, more per-core L1 and L2 cache, higher boost clock, ECC support, integrated graphics, both DDR4 and DDR5 support, PCIe Gen 5, and a 5 W lower TDP. The Intel launch MSRP is $134, and the AMD launch MSRP is $170.