Intel Core i5-10400H vs Intel Core i5-9400 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-10400H and Intel Core i5-9400 represent two distinct approaches to Intel's 14 nm process, one optimized for mobile power envelopes and the other for desktop thermal headroom. Despite their similar naming, the data reveals a fascinating split: the mobile chip dominates synthetic rendering workloads, while the desktop part claims victory in Geekbench multi-core. The benchmark results show a clear pattern of the 10400H leveraging its higher clock speeds and Hyper-Threading to overcome its core-count deficit, though the 9400's additional physical cores still matter in certain tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core i5-10400H wins seven of the eight head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with its most consistent advantage appearing in Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 10400H scores 697 against the 9400's 668, a 4.3% delta. The single-core R15 result is identical in margin: 98 versus 94, also a 4.3% advantage. This pattern holds steady across the entire Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R20, the mobile chip posts 2908 versus 2784, a 4.5% lead in multi-core, and 410 versus 392 for a 4.6% edge in single-core. The R23 results continue the trend: 6924 against 6629 (4.5% multi-core) and 977 against 935 (4.5% single-core). These consistent margins suggest the 10400H's 4.60 GHz boost clock provides a decisive advantage in Cinebench's workload profile, which favors higher IPC and clock speeds over raw core counts.

The single Geekbench multi-core test breaks the pattern, with the 9400 scoring 5141 against the 10400H's 5000, a 2.7% margin in favor of the desktop chip. This result is notable because it is the only benchmark where the 9400 wins, and it highlights a workload that scales better with additional physical cores. The 9400's six cores versus the 10400H's four cores, combined with a 2.90 GHz base clock that sustains better under multi-threaded loads without thermal throttling, likely explains this result. In Geekbench single-core, however, the 10400H reclaims the lead: 1413 versus 1389, a 1.7% margin, reinforcing its clock-speed advantage.

The average benchmark scores reflect this overall dominance. The 10400H averages 2303 across all tests, while the 9400 averages 2254. This places the 10400H approximately 2.2% ahead on average, a modest but consistent lead. The 10400H's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-8809G at 2307 (within 0.2%), while the 9400's closest competitor is the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 at 2259 (also within 0.2%). Both processors sit at the 47th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they occupy similar performance tiers overall, despite their different architectural approaches.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock, and how does that affect benchmark results?

A: The Intel Core i5-10400H has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, compared to the 9400's 4.10 GHz. This 0.50 GHz advantage appears directly in the Cinebench results, where the 10400H leads by 4.3% to 4.6% across all R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single and multi-core.

Q: Does the 9400's six physical cores always beat the 10400H's four cores with Hyper-Threading?

A: No. The 10400H's 4 cores and 8 threads outperform the 9400's 6 cores and 6 threads in seven of eight benchmarks. Only in Geekbench multi-core does the 9400 win, scoring 5141 versus 5000, a 2.7% margin. In Cinebench tests, the 10400H's thread advantage plus higher clocks yield consistent leads.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The 10400H wins every single-core test. In Cinebench R15, it scores 98 versus 94 (4.3% higher); in R20, 410 versus 392 (4.6% higher); in R23, 977 versus 935 (4.5% higher); and in Geekbench, 1413 versus 1389 (1.7% higher). The 4.60 GHz boost clock is the primary driver.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between these two CPUs?

A: The 10400H supports a maximum memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s, while the 9400 is rated at 42.7 GB/s. This 4.2 GB/s difference may contribute to the 10400H's performance lead in memory-sensitive workloads, though both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Are these processors from the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both use Intel's 14 nm process node. The 10400H uses the Comet Lake architecture (Comet Lake-H codename), while the 9400 uses Coffee Lake (Coffee Lake Refresh codename). Both are manufactured by Intel.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache, and does it show in benchmarks?

A: The 9400 has 9 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 10400H has 6 MB. Despite having 50% more L3 cache, the 9400 still loses to the 10400H in all Cinebench multi-core tests, indicating that clock speed and thread count matter more than raw cache size in these workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-10400H is the clear winner for rendering and compute-heavy workloads. Its 4.3% to 4.6% advantage across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single and multi-core, makes it the superior choice for applications like 3D rendering, video encoding, and scientific computing that rely on sustained clock speeds and efficient thread handling. The 10400H's 4.60 GHz boost clock delivers consistent performance uplifts in these scenarios, and its 8 threads provide enough parallelism to keep modern render engines well-fed. The 4.6% single-core advantage in R20 (410 versus 392) also suggests better responsiveness in lightly-threaded creative applications like photo editing.

The Intel Core i5-9400 wins specifically in Geekbench multi-core, scoring 5141 versus 5000 (2.7% higher). This indicates scenarios where the workload scales almost linearly with physical cores, such as certain compilation tasks, virtual machine hosting, or database queries that benefit from six independent execution engines. The 9400's 65 W TDP also suggests it can maintain its 2.90 GHz base clock across all six cores without the power constraints of a mobile chip, which may matter in sustained multi-threaded workloads that run for extended periods. For users who prioritize six physical cores over higher clocks and Hyper-Threading, the 9400 offers a specific advantage in this one benchmark.

For general productivity and mixed workloads, the 10400H's overall 2.2% average benchmark advantage (2303 versus 2254) makes it the safer choice. Its seven benchmark wins out of eight demonstrate broader applicability, while the 9400's single victory is confined to a workload that specifically rewards core count.

Specification Differences

The core configurations differ fundamentally. The 10400H offers 4 cores with 8 threads, while the 9400 provides 6 cores with 6 threads. This means the 10400H has Hyper-Threading, enabling 8 execution threads, whereas the 9400 runs one thread per core. Clock speeds also diverge: the 10400H has a 2.60 GHz base clock and 4.60 GHz boost, while the 9400 has a higher 2.90 GHz base but lower 4.10 GHz boost. The 10400H's higher boost clock is critical to its benchmark wins.

Power and socket differences are significant. The 10400H has a 45 W TDP and uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket, indicating a soldered mobile design. The 9400 has a 65 W TDP and uses the Intel Socket 1151, a standard desktop socket that allows for cooler replacement. Memory support also differs: the 10400H supports both DDR3 and DDR4, while the 9400 supports only DDR4. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the 10400H has higher maximum bandwidth at 46.9 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s.

Cache hierarchies differ primarily in L3 capacity. The 10400H has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 9400 has 9 MB. Both have identical per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) caches. The integrated graphics also differ: the 10400H features UHD Graphics, while the 9400 has UHD 630. PCIe support is Gen 3 for both, but the 9400 explicitly lists 16 lanes (CPU only), while the 10400H does not specify lane count.

Production status and release dates distinguish these parts. The 10400H is marked as Active, released 2020-04-01, while the 9400 is End-of-life, released 2018-10-18. The 10400H targets the Mobile market segment, whereas the 9400 is a Desktop part. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither has a listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is defined by process generation and design intent. Both chips use Intel's 14 nm process and are built by Intel, but they stem from different microarchitectures. The 10400H uses Comet Lake, specifically the Comet Lake-H codename, which is the 10th-generation Core i5 design. The 9400 uses Coffee Lake, specifically Coffee Lake Refresh, representing the 8th-generation Core i5 architecture. Despite the generation gap, both rely on the same fundamental 14 nm transistor technology.

The core design philosophy differs in transistor allocation. The 10400H dedicates its die to fewer cores (4) with higher clock headroom (4.60 GHz boost), allowing each core to achieve better single-thread performance. The 9400 uses its larger thermal budget (65 W versus 45 W) to power six cores, though at a lower maximum boost (4.10 GHz). This trade-off is visible in benchmark results: the 10400H wins all single-core tests by 1.7% to 4.6%, while the 9400's six cores only overcome the 10400H in Geekbench multi-core.

Cache architecture reflects the core count difference. The 9400's 9 MB L3 cache is sized to serve six cores, providing 1.5 MB per core. The 10400H's 6 MB L3 cache serves four cores, also at 1.5 MB per core. This equal per-core allocation means cache efficiency is similar, but the 9400 has more total capacity to draw from in multi-threaded scenarios.

The memory controllers differ in supported technologies. The 10400H's support for both DDR3 and DDR4 suggests a more flexible memory interface designed for mobile platforms where older memory modules might be reused. The 9400's DDR4-only support is typical of desktop designs from its era. The 10400H's higher memory bandwidth (46.9 GB/s) indicates a more efficient memory controller, despite the 9400 having more L3 cache to compensate.

The integrated graphics solutions also represent different generations. The 10400H uses UHD Graphics, while the 9400 uses UHD 630. Both are integrated solutions, but the 10400H's newer architecture likely benefits from improved drivers and power management, though the fact pack provides no direct graphics benchmark comparisons. The 9400's PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only) specification suggests a standard desktop configuration, while the 10400H's mobile design may route PCIe lanes differently for laptop-specific connectivity.