AMD Ryzen 5 8400F vs Intel Core 5 213PTE Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PTE records an average benchmark score of 32924, placing it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F records an average score of 25005, which places it in the 77th percentile.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PTE uses 8 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F uses 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel part thus offers two more cores and four more threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PTE supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F does not list ECC support.

Q: What are the socket and platform requirements for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F uses AMD Socket AM5, while the Intel Core 5 213PTE uses Intel Socket 1700. These sockets are not interchangeable.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PTE includes UHD Graphics 730. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F lists integrated graphics as N/A, meaning it has no integrated GPU.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PTE boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F boosts to 4.70 GHz. The Intel part has the higher boost clock by 0.50 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F belongs to the 8000 series and uses Zen 4 architecture with the Phoenix codename. It is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 5 213PTE carries the Bartlett Lake codename and is manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry.

The AMD part features 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel part features 8 cores and 16 threads. The base clocks differ substantially: the AMD chip runs at 4.20 GHz, while the Intel chip runs at 2.10 GHz. However, the boost clocks reverse the picture, with the Intel chip reaching 5.20 GHz versus 4.70 GHz for the AMD chip. The AMD processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel processor is locked.

Cache layouts differ in both size and organization. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F uses 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 5 213PTE uses 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has a larger L3 cache by 8 MB.

Memory support also diverges. The AMD chip supports only DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, with a memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The Intel chip supports both DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus, with a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The AMD part has the higher memory bandwidth by 6.4 GB/s.

PCIe capabilities differ as well. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The Intel Core 5 213PTE provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Intel part offers a newer PCIe generation but fewer lanes.

Process node and transistor details also separate the two. The AMD chip uses 4 nm technology with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel chip uses 10 nm technology, and the database does not list transistor count or die size for it. The AMD processor has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Intel processor has a TDP of 45 watts.

Release dates differ as well. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F launched on 2024-03-31, while the Intel Core 5 213PTE launched on 2026-03-08. Both parts are listed as Active in production status.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the Intel Core 5 213PTE wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F wins 4. The Intel part also holds a higher average benchmark score (32924 versus 25005) and a higher percentile rank (83rd versus 77th).

The Intel Core 5 213PTE is the stronger choice for users who prioritize raw multithreaded throughput, floating-point math, or physics simulation. It leads in every Cinebench test, in PassMark multithread, floating-point math, integer math, and physics. The AMD part wins in data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, and random string sorting, which are narrower workloads.

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F remains relevant for specific tasks where its architectural strengths show. Its wins in data compression (10.4% ahead), data encryption (15.5% ahead), and extended instructions (37.3% ahead) indicate that certain compute-heavy operations favor the Zen 4 design. The AMD part also carries the lower launch MSRP, which the database lists at $170 versus $221 for the Intel part.

For general-purpose computing, the data points to the Intel Core 5 213PTE. The Cinebench multicore results show a consistent lead of approximately 4.1% to 4.2% across R15, R20, and R23. The PassMark multithread score also favors Intel by 4.7%. The single-thread PassMark scores are nearly identical, with Intel ahead by only 0.9%.

The choice depends on the workload mix. Users who need broad performance across rendering, physics, and general integer math should select the Intel part. Users whose workloads emphasize data compression, encryption, or extended instruction sets may find the AMD part preferable despite its overall lower average score.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 6 (AMD) versus 8 (Intel)
• Threads: 12 (AMD) versus 16 (Intel)
• Base Clock: 4.20 GHz (AMD) versus 2.10 GHz (Intel)
• Boost Clock: 4.70 GHz (AMD) versus 5.20 GHz (Intel)
• TDP: 65 W (AMD) versus 45 W (Intel)
• Socket: AMD Socket AM5 (AMD) versus Intel Socket 1700 (Intel)
• Architecture: Zen 4 (AMD) versus not listed (Intel)
• Codename: Phoenix (AMD) versus Bartlett Lake (Intel)
• Process Node: 4 nm (AMD) versus 10 nm (Intel)
• Foundry: TSMC (AMD) versus Intel (Intel)
• Transistors: 25,000 million (AMD) versus not listed (Intel)
• Die Size: 178 mm² (AMD) versus not listed (Intel)
• L1 Cache: 64 KB per core (AMD) versus 80 KB per core (Intel)
• L2 Cache: 1 MB per core (AMD) versus 2 MB per core (Intel)
• L3 Cache: 16 MB shared (AMD) versus 24 MB shared (Intel)
• Memory Support: DDR5 (AMD) versus DDR4, DDR5 (Intel)
• Memory Bandwidth: 83.2 GB/s (AMD) versus 76.8 GB/s (Intel)
• ECC Memory: false (AMD) versus true (Intel)
• PCIe: Gen 4, 20 Lanes (AMD) versus Gen 5, 16 Lanes (Intel)
• Integrated Graphics: N/A (AMD) versus UHD Graphics 730 (Intel)
• Release Date: 2024-03-31 (AMD) versus 2026-03-08 (Intel)
• Launch MSRP: $170 (AMD) versus $221 (Intel)
• Multiplier Unlocked: true (AMD) versus false (Intel)
• Part Number: 100-000001591 (AMD) versus SA4QM (Intel)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a uniform pattern: the Intel Core 5 213PTE wins every test by a narrow margin. In Cinebench R15 multicore, Intel scores 2192 against AMD's 2101, a delta of -4.2%. The single-core R15 result shows the same -4.2% delta, with Intel at 309 and AMD at 296. Cinebench R20 multicore gives Intel 9135 versus AMD's 8757 (-4.1%), and R20 single-core gives Intel 1289 versus AMD's 1236 (-4.1%). Cinebench R23 multicore shows Intel at 21751 and AMD at 20851 (-4.1%), while R23 single-core shows Intel at 3070 and AMD at 2943 (-4.1%).

The PassMark results split more dramatically. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F wins four tests by substantial margins. Data compression goes to AMD at 288158 versus Intel's 261083, a 10.4% advantage. Data encryption favors AMD at 16646 versus 14413, a 15.5% lead. Extended instructions show the largest AMD win: 22175 versus 16146, a 37.3% margin. Random string sorting also goes to AMD at 34604 versus 30106, a 14.9% advantage.

The Intel Core 5 213PTE wins the remaining PassMark tests, often by wide margins. Find prime numbers gives Intel 157 versus AMD's 89, a 43.3% lead. Floating-point math shows Intel at 71722 versus AMD's 46217, a 35.6% margin. Integer math favors Intel at 93109 versus 74021, a 20.5% lead. Physics results show Intel at 2199 versus AMD's 1332, a 39.4% margin. Multithread gives Intel 25590 versus AMD's 24389, a 4.7% lead. The single-thread test shows Intel at 3718 versus AMD's 3685, a narrow 0.9% margin. The duplicate singlethread result mirrors this exactly.

The overall win count stands at 13 for the Intel part and 4 for the AMD part.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 213PTE dominates in rendering and general compute workloads. Every Cinebench test, regardless of core count or generation, goes to Intel with a consistent 4.1% to 4.2% margin. This consistency suggests a stable advantage across both single-threaded and multithreaded rendering tasks. The Intel part also wins PassMark multithread, which aligns with its higher core and thread counts.

The Intel part shows particularly strong results in math-heavy tasks. Floating-point math favors Intel by 35.6%, integer math by 20.5%, and prime number finding by 43.3%. The physics score also favors Intel by 39.4%. These results indicate that Intel's architecture handles arithmetic and simulation workloads with notably higher throughput.

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F wins in four specific areas that involve data manipulation and instruction-level work. Data compression shows a 10.4% AMD advantage, which indicates faster handling of compression algorithms. Data encryption favors AMD by 15.5%, suggesting an edge in cryptographic workloads. Extended instructions show the largest AMD margin at 37.3%, pointing to a significant advantage in specialized instruction sets. Random string sorting also goes to AMD with a 14.9% lead.

The single-thread results are close, with Intel ahead by only 0.9%. This near-parity in single-thread performance means the two processors are effectively matched for lightly threaded tasks, and the differences in other benchmarks come from the core counts, cache sizes, and architectural execution characteristics.

For users running rendering, physics simulation, or heavy arithmetic, the Intel Core 5 213PTE is the clear winner in the recorded data. For users working with compression, encryption, or extended instruction sets, the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F provides the better measured results. The AMD part also offers an unlocked multiplier and a lower launch MSRP, which may factor into platform-level decisions.