AMD Ryzen 5 8400F vs Intel Core 5 120 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a clear split between these two six-core, twelve-thread desktop processors. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F dominates the overwhelming majority of recorded workloads, taking 16 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons. The Intel Core 5 120 manages only a single victory, and that win is by the narrowest possible margin.

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F establishes its advantage across every major rendering workload. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 2101 against the Intel's 1840, a 12.4% gap. The R20 multicore test shows 8757 versus 7667, again a 12.4% difference. The R23 multicore result continues the pattern at 20851 versus 18255, a 12.5% edge. These consistent margins across three generations of the Cinebench suite indicate a structural performance advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Single-threaded rendering tells the same story. The Ryzen 5 8400F leads by 12.5% in Cinebench R15 single-core (296 versus 259), by 12.5% in R20 single-core (1236 versus 1082), and by 12.4% in R23 single-core (2943 versus 2577). The consistency of these percentages, all hovering near 12.5%, suggests the clock speed and architectural efficiency differences translate uniformly across the rendering tests.

The PassMark suite reveals where the AMD part pulls further ahead. Data compression shows a 23.8% lead (288158 versus 219535), while multithreaded performance shows a 23.7% gap (24389 versus 18597). Integer math favors the Ryzen by 18.3% (74021 versus 60462). The largest differences appear in extended instructions (35.7% ahead at 22175 versus 14264), random string sorting (37.9% ahead at 34604 versus 21499), and data encryption (33.1% ahead at 16646 versus 11131). These are substantial, workload-specific victories that point to differences in how each processor handles specialized instruction paths and memory access patterns.

The Intel Core 5 120 claims its sole win in the PassMark physics test, scoring 1333 against the AMD's 1332. The margin is 0.1%, effectively a statistical tie, but the recorded data does list it as an Intel victory. This is the only benchmark in the entire comparison where the Intel part finishes ahead.

The closest AMD victories come in floating-point math (1.8% ahead, 46217 versus 45383) and single-threaded PassMark performance (2.4% ahead, 3685 versus 3595). These modest gaps suggest that in lightly threaded, floating-point-heavy scenarios, the two processors are nearly interchangeable, with the Ryzen holding only a slight edge.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F as the stronger processor for nearly every measured workload. The benchmark results show consistent double-digit leads in rendering, compression, encryption, and multithreaded synthetic tests. Anyone selecting between these two based purely on recorded performance would choose the AMD part for rendering tasks, content creation workflows, and any application that scales across multiple threads.

The Intel Core 5 120 does have one narrow advantage: the physics test. That 0.1% margin, however, is well within normal run-to-run variance and should not be treated as a meaningful strength. The Intel part also carries integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 730) while the AMD part has no integrated GPU, a feature difference that matters for systems built without a discrete graphics card. The recorded data cannot quantify the value of that integrated graphics, but it is a real specification difference.

For buyers with a discrete GPU already in hand, the Ryzen 5 8400F offers superior measured performance in 16 of 17 benchmarks. For buyers who need a processor that can output video without a separate graphics card, the Intel Core 5 120 is the only one of the two with that capability, though the performance cost in every other benchmark is substantial. The Ryzen also offers an unlocked multiplier, which means the recorded boost clock of 4.70 GHz is not necessarily the ceiling for users who overclock, while the Intel part is locked.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single gap in the entire comparison is random string sorting, where the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F leads by 37.9% (34604 versus 21499). This test is sensitive to memory latency and cache efficiency, and the Zen 4 architecture's 4 nm process and DDR5-only memory controller likely explain the magnitude of the difference. The Intel part's support for both DDR4 and DDR5 means it can be paired with slower memory, but even in a best-case DDR5 configuration, the recorded data shows a massive deficit.

Extended instructions follow closely at 35.7% (22175 versus 14264). This benchmark exercises SIMD and specialized instruction sets, and the Ryzen's 35.7% advantage indicates a meaningfully more efficient implementation of these paths. Data encryption shows a 33.1% gap (16646 versus 11131), which would translate directly into faster disk encryption, VPN throughput, and secure web browsing over HTTPS.

The Cinebench family of tests clusters tightly around the 12.4% to 12.5% range across all six tests. This uniformity is notable: whether single-core or multicore, whether R15, R20, or R23, the AMD part consistently delivers roughly an eighth more rendering throughput. The Ryzen's base clock of 4.20 GHz and boost clock of 4.70 GHz are substantially higher than the Intel's 2.50 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost, and the rendering results track that clock advantage closely.

PassMark multithreaded performance shows a 23.7% lead (24389 versus 18597), nearly double the Cinebench multicore gap. This suggests the AMD architecture handles the particular mix of instructions in PassMark's multithreaded test more efficiently than it does Cinebench's rendering workload. Data compression at 23.8% (288158 versus 219535) matches the multithreaded gap almost exactly, reinforcing that the AMD part's advantage grows when workloads involve heavy data movement.

Integer math shows an 18.3% gap (74021 versus 60462), while floating-point math is nearly even at 1.8% (46217 versus 45383). The small floating-point difference is curious given the large integer gap, but the recorded data is clear: the Ryzen's integer pipeline outperforms the Intel's by a wide margin, while their floating-point units are closely matched.

Prime number finding shows a 13.5% gap (89 versus 77), and single-threaded PassMark shows 2.4% (3685 versus 3595). The single-thread gap is much smaller than the Cinebench single-core gap of 12.5%, indicating that PassMark's single-threaded test weights different aspects of single-core performance than Cinebench does.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core 5 120 wins one: the PassMark physics test, by a 0.1% margin.

Q: How big is the Cinebench R23 multicore gap?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F scores 20851 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Intel Core 5 120 scores 18255. The AMD part leads by 12.5%.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core 5 120 includes UHD Graphics 730. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Q: What is the difference in memory support?

A: The Intel Core 5 120 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel Core 5 120 does not have an unlocked multiplier.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark random string sorting, where the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F leads by 37.9% (34604 versus 21499). The second largest is extended instructions at 35.7% (22175 versus 14264).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design lineages. The Intel Core 5 120 uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, built on Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 163 mm². The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Phoenix codename, manufactured by TSMC on a 4 nm process with a die size of 178 mm² and a transistor count of 25,000 million. The Intel part does not list a transistor count in the recorded data.

Cache hierarchies differ in both size and organization. The Intel part allocates 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 18 MB of shared L3. The AMD part uses 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel processor holds a cache capacity advantage at every level, yet the AMD processor still wins the vast majority of benchmarks, indicating that raw cache size is not the determining factor in these results.

Platform connectivity differs as well. The Intel Core 5 120 uses Intel Socket 1700 with PCIe Gen 5 and 16 lanes from the CPU. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F uses AMD Socket AM5 with PCIe Gen 4 and 20 lanes from the CPU. The Intel platform offers a newer PCIe generation, but the AMD platform provides more total lanes.

The Intel part includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics 730, while the AMD part has no integrated graphics at all. This is a decisive feature difference for systems that will run without a discrete GPU. The Intel processor also supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, giving builders flexibility in platform cost, while the AMD processor requires DDR5. The AMD part's memory bandwidth is recorded at 83.2 GB/s; the Intel part's bandwidth is not recorded in the database.

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F carries an unlocked multiplier, enabling user-controlled overclocking. The Intel Core 5 120 is multiplier-locked. Both processors run at a 65 W TDP and both target the desktop market segment, with active production status.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are identical: both have 6 cores and 12 threads. The differences begin with clock speeds. The Intel Core 5 120 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The AMD part runs at a substantially higher base clock, which contributes to its consistent benchmark lead.

The process nodes differ: Intel uses a 10 nm process from its own foundry, while AMD uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The AMD part's transistor count is listed at 25,000 million, while the Intel part's transistor count is not recorded. Die sizes are close, with Intel at 163 mm² and AMD at 178 mm².

Memory support diverges sharply. The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the AMD part supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The AMD part's memory bandwidth is recorded at 83.2 GB/s; the Intel part's bandwidth is not recorded.

PCIe capabilities also differ. The Intel Core 5 120 provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics represent a major differentiator: the Intel part includes UHD Graphics 730, while the AMD part has no integrated graphics. The AMD part has an unlocked multiplier; the Intel part does not. The release dates differ, with the AMD part launching earlier, and the Intel part's launch MSRP is $211 while the AMD part's launch MSRP is $170. Both processors have a TDP of 65 W, neither supports ECC memory, and both are currently in active production for the desktop market.