AMD Ryzen 5 8400F vs Intel Core 5 223PE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a clear and consistent pattern: the Intel Core 5 223PE wins every single head-to-head comparison, 17 out of 17. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F does not take a single win in the shared test suite. The margins vary substantially by workload, and the Intel part’s largest advantages come in math and physics tasks.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel Core 5 223PE scores 26,455 against the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F’s 20,851, a 21.2% advantage. The single-core version of the same test shows a similar gap: 3,734 versus 2,943, also 21.2% ahead. Cinebench R15 and R20 follow the same pattern, with the Intel part leading by 21.2% or 21.3% in every one of those four tests. That consistency suggests the gap is structural, not workload-dependent.

The PassMark suite reveals where the Intel architecture pulls further ahead. The floating point math test is a stand-out: Intel scores 76,468, while AMD scores 46,217, a 39.6% lead. Integer math shows a 25.8% gap (99,819 versus 74,021). The physics test is the largest single margin in the entire comparison, with Intel at 2,493 and AMD at 1,332, a 46.6% lead. The prime number search test also shows a major difference: Intel at 159 versus AMD at 89, a 44% gap. These are not small margins; they indicate that the Intel part has a substantial throughput advantage in compute-heavy tasks.

The smallest margins appear in random string sorting, where Intel leads by only 3.3% (35,798 versus 34,604), and data encryption, where the lead is 9.8% (18,448 versus 16,646). Extended instructions show a 10.1% gap (24,672 versus 22,175). Data compression lands in the middle at 16.9% (346,623 versus 288,158). Single-threaded PassMark results give Intel a 12.7% lead (4,219 versus 3,685).

The average benchmark scores in the database reinforce this picture. The Intel Core 5 223PE carries an average score of 40,585, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F averages 25,005, in the 77th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Intel part are other Intel parts: the Core 7 253PE at 40,557 (0.1% behind), the Xeon 6357P at 40,630 (0.1% ahead), and the Core Ultra X7 368H at 40,518 (0.2% behind). The AMD part’s nearest rivals include the Ryzen 5 7500F at 24,964 (0.2% behind) and the Core i7-11850H at 24,935 (0.3% behind). The Intel Core 5 223PE sits in a higher performance tier entirely.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design schools. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F uses a Zen 4 architecture on the Phoenix die, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It packs 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core 5 223PE uses the Bartlett Lake design on a 10 nm process at Intel, with 8 cores and 16 threads. That two-core and four-thread difference is the most obvious structural gap, and it explains much of the multi-threaded scoring.

Cache layouts differ as well. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. Twice the L2 per core and 50% more L3 give the Intel design more local data capacity, which helps in workloads that reuse data sets frequently.

Clock speeds tell a mixed story. The AMD part has a higher base clock at 4.20 GHz, but the Intel part boosts much higher at 5.20 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. The Intel part’s boost advantage of 0.5 GHz shows up directly in the single-threaded benchmark leads. Both parts have a 65 W TDP, so the Intel part delivers its higher performance within the same thermal envelope.

Memory support diverges. The AMD part supports only DDR5 with dual-channel access and 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on the Intel part but not on the AMD part. PCIe connectivity also differs: AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while Intel provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The Intel part includes integrated UHD Graphics 730, while the AMD part has no integrated graphics at all.

The AMD part is unlocked for overclocking and launched with a part number of 100-000001591. The Intel part is locked, carries the part number SA4QF, and includes ECC support, which suits certain workstation or server-adjacent uses. The AMD socket is AM5, while the Intel socket is LGA 1700. The AMD part is built by TSMC, the Intel part by Intel’s own fabs.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data gives the Intel Core 5 223PE a win in every recorded category, so the analysis is about where the Intel part wins by a little versus a lot. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has no recorded wins, but the margin analysis shows which workloads narrow the gap.

The Intel part is strongest in physics simulation, floating point math, and prime number finding. The 46.6% physics lead and 44% prime number lead suggest the 8-core, 16-thread design with higher boost clocks has a decisive edge in scientific and simulation workloads. The 39.6% floating point lead reinforces that these are compute-bound tasks where the Intel architecture’s throughput dominates.

Workloads that rely on memory bandwidth and cache efficiency show a closer contest. Random string sorting is nearly even at 3.3% apart, and data encryption is only 9.8% apart. These tasks often depend on memory access patterns rather than raw compute throughput. The AMD part’s higher base clock helps keep it within striking distance in these latency-sensitive tasks, even though it still loses.

The single-threaded tests show the Intel part’s boost clock advantage. At 4,219 versus 3,685 in PassMark single-thread, the Intel part leads by 12.7%. The Cinebench single-core tests show a larger 21.2% gap, which suggests the Intel boost clock plus architecture efficiency matters more under sustained single-core load. For users running lightly threaded applications, the Intel part has the clear edge.

Multi-threaded workloads broadly favor the Intel part by around 21%, as shown in the Cinebench multi-core tests and the PassMark multithread score (31,124 versus 24,389, a 21.6% gap). The Intel part’s two extra cores and four extra threads translate directly into this consistent multi-core advantage. The AMD part’s 6-core, 12-thread configuration simply cannot match the throughput of the Intel part’s 8-core, 16-thread design in heavily parallel tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 223PE boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F boosts to 4.70 GHz. The AMD part has a higher base clock at 4.20 GHz versus 2.90 GHz.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two in any benchmark?

A: The PassMark physics test shows the largest gap, with the Intel Core 5 223PE scoring 2,493 against the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F’s 1,332, a 46.6% difference.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F supports only DDR5, while the Intel Core 5 223PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core 5 223PE includes UHD Graphics 730. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has no integrated graphics.

Q: Do these processors have the same TDP?

A: Yes, both are rated at 65 W TDP, despite the Intel part having more cores and a higher boost clock.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core 5 223PE averages 40,585, while the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F averages 25,005. The Intel part sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, the AMD part in the 77th.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Core 5 223PE outperforms the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F in every measured benchmark. The Intel part has a 21.2% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, a 39.6% lead in floating point math, and a 46.6% lead in physics. Its average benchmark score is 62% higher (40,585 versus 25,005), and it ranks in the 87th percentile of all CPUs versus the 77th for the AMD part.

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F’s only structural advantages are its higher base clock, its unlocked multiplier for overclocking, and its lower launch MSRP. The database shows it at $170 launch MSRP versus $232 for the Intel part. But the performance data gives no workload where the AMD part wins. Even in the closest contest, random string sorting, the Intel part still leads by 3.3%.

For any application that benefits from multi-threading, the Intel part’s 8 cores and 16 threads decisively beat the AMD part’s 6 cores and 12 threads. For single-threaded work, the Intel part’s 5.20 GHz boost clock provides a clear edge. The AMD part’s only realistic appeal is its lower launch MSRP and unlocked overclocking, but the recorded benchmark results offer no performance category where it takes the lead.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 8400F | Intel Core 5 223PE |

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

| Cores | 6 | 8 |

| Threads | 12 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 4.20 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.70 GHz | 5.20 GHz |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Bartlett Lake |

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

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 16 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes | Gen 5, 16 Lanes |

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

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Launch MSRP | $170 | $232 |