AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 vs Intel Core i5-9400 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 are closely matched desktop processors, landing at the 47th percentile of all CPUs in the database. While their average benchmark scores are nearly identical—2254 for the Intel part and 2246 for the AMD part—the data reveals a decisive split in workload characteristics. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 wins every single head-to-head benchmark listed, despite having fewer physical cores, while the Intel part counters with a higher boost clock and integrated graphics. The overall picture is one of a statistical tie in aggregate performance, but a clear victory for AMD in threaded and single-threaded rendering workloads.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 is the superior choice for pure compute performance. It wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with margins ranging from 14.5% to 14.8% over the Intel Core i5-9400. The AMD part’s advantage is consistent across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multi-core tests. Notably, the Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 accomplishes this with 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel chip has 6 cores and 6 threads. The data suggests that AMD’s simultaneous multithreading (SMT) more than compensates for the two-core deficit.

The Intel Core i5-9400 is not without its merits, but those merits do not show up in the benchmark scores. It offers a higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz versus the AMD’s 3.70 GHz, and it includes integrated UHD 630 graphics, which the Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 lacks entirely. For a system that needs a display output without a discrete GPU, the Intel part is the only option of the two. However, for any user prioritizing raw processing power—as measured by Cinebench—the data leaves no room for debate: the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 is the pick. The Intel chip’s average score of 2254 is just 0.4% higher than the AMD’s 2246, but that aggregate figure masks the AMD part’s consistent head-to-head dominance.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages and manufacturing processes, though both are built on a 14 nm node. The Intel Core i5-9400 uses the Coffee Lake architecture, produced by Intel, and is part of the Core i5 (Coffee Lake Refresh) generation. It features 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyper-threading, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The cache hierarchy is split: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 9 MB L3 cache. The CPU is unlocked? No, the multiplier is locked, and it supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. It has 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only) and includes integrated UHD 630 graphics. The part is end-of-life and was released in October 2018.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 is based on the Zen architecture, codenamed Summit Ridge, from the Ryzen 5 (Zen) generation. It is manufactured by GlobalFoundries on the same 14 nm process. This chip has 4 cores but 8 threads, thanks to SMT, with a higher base clock of 3.50 GHz but a lower boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The cache layout is different: 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a larger 16 MB shared L3 cache. The transistor count is 4,800 million on a 192 mm² die, and the multiplier is unlocked. It supports dual-channel DDR4 memory, but its memory bandwidth is not listed in the data. Notably, it has no integrated graphics, which is a significant divergence from the Intel part. The Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 is still in active production, released in June 2017.

These differences explain the benchmark results. The AMD part’s larger L3 cache (16 MB vs. 9 MB) and per-core L2 cache (512 KB vs. 256 KB) help feed its threads, while the SMT implementation allows it to use its execution resources more efficiently than Intel’s 6-core/6-thread design. The higher boost clock on the Intel chip does not translate into higher single-core scores, suggesting the AMD architecture is more efficient per clock in these workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 wins in every benchmark category listed. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 782 versus the Intel’s 668, a 14.6% lead. In single-core R15, it scores 110 versus 94, a 14.5% margin. The pattern repeats in R20 (3261 vs. 2784 multi-core; 460 vs. 392 single-core) and R23 (7766 vs. 6629 multi-core; 1096 vs. 935 single-core). The consistency of the delta—hovering around 14.5% to 14.8% across all tests—indicates a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The Intel Core i5-9400’s only wins are in attributes not measured by the benchmark suite. It has a higher boost clock (4.10 GHz vs. 3.70 GHz), which could favor lightly-threaded tasks that are not captured by Cinebench’s single-core test. It also includes integrated UHD 630 graphics, making it the only viable choice for a build without a discrete GPU. For systems that require a GPU-less display output or that rely on Intel’s Quick Sync features, the i5-9400 is the functional option. However, in the context of pure CPU benchmark performance, the AMD part is the clear winner across the board.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400 has 6 physical cores, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 has 4 physical cores.

Q: Why does the AMD chip win in multi-core benchmarks despite having fewer cores?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 has 8 threads thanks to SMT, compared to 6 threads on the Intel part. The benchmark data shows the AMD chip wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with a score of 7766 versus 6629, a 14.6% margin, indicating its threading implementation is more effective.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400 has a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, which is higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500’s 3.70 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support integrated graphics?

A: No. The Intel Core i5-9400 includes integrated UHD 630 graphics, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 does not list any integrated graphics support.

Q: Are both CPUs on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are built on a 14 nm process node. The Intel part is fabricated by Intel, while the AMD part is fabricated by GlobalFoundries.

Q: Which CPU is still in active production?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 is listed as active, while the Intel Core i5-9400 is end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is a clean sweep for the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD scores 782 against the Intel’s 668, a delta of 14.6% in favor of the AMD part. The single-core R15 test shows a similar story: 110 for AMD versus 94 for Intel, a 14.5% lead. These margins are not marginal; they represent a substantial performance gap in a legacy rendering workload.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the results scale accordingly. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 achieves 3261 in multi-core, while the Intel Core i5-9400 manages 2784—again a 14.6% difference. In single-core R20, the AMD scores 460 versus 392, a 14.8% delta. The pattern holds in the latest Cinebench R23 test. The AMD wins multi-core with 7766 against 6629, and single-core with 1096 against 935, both at approximately 14.6% and 14.7% margins respectively.

The most striking aspect is the consistency. Across six benchmarks, the deltaPct ranges from 14.5% to 14.8%, with the AMD part winning every time. This uniformity suggests that the performance difference is structural—likely due to the AMD’s larger cache hierarchy (16 MB L3 vs. 9 MB) and SMT implementation—rather than test-specific. The Intel chip’s higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz does not help it close the gap, even in single-threaded tests. The data indicates that the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 is categorically faster in these Cinebench workloads, making it the better choice for anyone prioritizing rendering or heavily threaded performance. The Intel Core i5-9400’s average benchmark score of 2254 is only 0.4% higher than the AMD’s 2246, but that average is pulled up by its Geekbench scores of 5141 multi-core and 1389 single-core, which are not part of the head-to-head comparison. In the tests where both chips are measured directly, the AMD part is consistently ahead.