Intel Core i5-10600KF vs Intel Core i5-11400H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data presents a fascinating split between these two six-core, twelve-thread processors. The Intel Core i5-10600KF wins 9 of the 25 benchmark comparisons, while the Intel Core i5-11400H takes 16. This is not a clean victory for either side, as the nature of the wins tells two very different stories about what each chip does best.

The most dramatic single benchmark result belongs to the i5-11400H in the PassMark data encryption test. It scores 9309 against the i5-10600KF's 4832, a massive 48.1% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison, and it suggests a significant architectural improvement in the newer mobile chip's cryptographic instruction handling. The i5-11400H also shows a strong lead in integer math, scoring 53286 versus 47508, a 10.8% gap, and in floating point math, where it posts 32060 against 29521, a 7.9% advantage.

The i5-10600KF, however, is not without its own headline victories. Its most impressive win comes in the PassMark physics test, where it scores 810 against the i5-11400H's 678, a 19.5% lead. It also dominates in GeekBench multi-core, scoring 7633 versus 6396, a 19.3% advantage. The desktop chip further demonstrates its strength in random string sorting, winning 26532 to 22512, a 17.9% lead, and in data compression, 211643 to 190855, a 10.9% edge.

The Cinebench suite tells a consistent story in favor of the i5-11400H. Across all three versions (R15, R20, and R23), the mobile chip wins both single-core and multi-core tests by margins between 6.6% and 6.7%. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i5-11400H scores 12859 against 12003, and in single-core, it posts 1815 against 1694. This consistency suggests a fundamental per-clock efficiency advantage for the Tiger Lake architecture.

The 3DMark results are mixed. The i5-11400H wins the 2-thread test (1688 vs 1554, a 7.9% margin) and the 4-thread test (3062 vs 2947, a 3.8% margin). The i5-10600KF counters by winning the 8-thread test (4513 vs 4423, a 2% margin), the 16-thread test (5359 vs 5205, a 3% margin), and the max-threads test (5364 vs 5172, a 3.7% margin). The single-thread 3DMark result strongly favors the i5-11400H, with a 884 score against 799, a 9.6% advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a clear picture of use-case specialization. The Intel Core i5-11400H is the single-thread performance champion. It wins the 3DMark single-thread test by 9.6%, the Cinebench R23 single-core test by 6.7%, and the PassMark single-thread test by 2.3%. This makes it the stronger choice for lightly threaded workloads, such as older games, everyday desktop applications, and tasks that rely on one or two fast cores.

The i5-11400H also demonstrates superiority in math-heavy operations. Its wins in integer math (10.8%), floating point math (7.9%), and data encryption (48.1%) suggest it is better suited for scientific computing, financial modeling, and any workload that involves heavy arithmetic or cryptography. The find prime numbers test, though close, also goes to the i5-11400H by 4.3%, reinforcing its math processing edge.

The Intel Core i5-10600KF, by contrast, is the multi-threaded throughput winner in several key tests. Its 19.3% lead in GeekBench multi-core is substantial, and its 19.5% win in the PassMark physics test indicates stronger performance in simulation and physics-based workloads. The data compression win of 10.9% and the random string sorting win of 17.9% point to advantages in data processing, file archiving, and database operations. The extended instructions test, which the i5-10600KF wins by 9.2%, suggests better handling of SIMD and specialized instruction sets.

The 3DMark results show the i5-10600KF scaling better as thread count increases. It loses at 2 and 4 threads but wins at 8, 16, and max threads. This indicates that for modern games and applications that can use more than four threads, the desktop chip maintains a slight edge in sustained multi-threaded throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and are built for different market segments. The Core i5-10600KF is a desktop processor based on the Comet Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 14 nm process node. It uses the Intel Socket 1200 and has a base clock of 4.10 GHz with a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. Its TDP is 95 watts, reflecting its desktop orientation and higher power envelope.

The Core i5-11400H is a mobile processor based on the Tiger Lake architecture, specifically Tiger Lake-H, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process node. It uses the Intel BGA 1787 socket and has a significantly lower base clock of 2.20 GHz, though its boost clock reaches 4.50 GHz. Its TDP is 35 watts, a much more power-efficient design suitable for laptops.

The cache hierarchies differ notably. The i5-10600KF has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The i5-11400H offers more L1 cache at 80 KB per core and a substantially larger L2 cache at 1.25 MB per core. Both share 12 MB of L3 cache. The larger L2 cache in the i5-11400H likely contributes to its single-thread performance advantage.

Memory bandwidth also favors the i5-11400H, which supports 51.2 GB/s versus the i5-10600KF's 42.7 GB/s, both over dual-channel DDR4. The mobile chip also offers PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the desktop chip is limited to PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

The i5-11400H includes integrated UHD Graphics, while the i5-10600KF has no integrated graphics, as indicated by the "KF" suffix which denotes an unlocked multiplier without graphics. The i5-10600KF has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, while the i5-11400H is locked.

The die size for the i5-11400H is recorded at 190 mm², while no die size is listed for the i5-10600KF. The release dates differ by over a year, with the i5-10600KF launching in April 2020 and the i5-11400H in May 2021.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i5-10600KF has a higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz, compared to the i5-11400H's 4.50 GHz.

Q: How much larger is the L2 cache on the i5-11400H?

A: The i5-11400H has 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, while the i5-10600KF has 256 KB per core, making the mobile chip's L2 cache over four times larger per core.

Q: Which chip supports PCIe Gen 4?

A: The Intel Core i5-11400H supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the i5-10600KF is limited to PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

Q: Is the i5-10600KF overclockable?

A: Yes, the i5-10600KF has an unlocked multiplier, indicated by the "KF" suffix, while the i5-11400H is locked and cannot be overclocked.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two chips?

A: The i5-10600KF has a TDP of 95 watts, while the i5-11400H has a TDP of 35 watts, reflecting the desktop versus mobile design focus.

Q: Which chip has integrated graphics?

A: The i5-11400H includes UHD Graphics, while the i5-10600KF has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-10600KF | Intel Core i5-11400H |

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

| Base Clock | 4.10 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| TDP | 95 W | 35 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1200 | Intel BGA 1787 |

| Architecture | Comet Lake | Tiger Lake-H |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 10 nm |

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

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 42.7 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes | Gen 4, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Die Size | Not listed | 190 mm² |

| Release Date | 2020-04-29 | 2021-05-10 |

The Verdict

The data from this benchmark comparison reveals a clear division of strengths. The Intel Core i5-11400H is the better choice for users who prioritize single-thread performance, cryptographic operations, and math-intensive workloads. Its consistent wins across the Cinebench suite, its 9.6% lead in 3DMark single-thread, and its dominant 48.1% advantage in data encryption make it the superior processor for these tasks. The mobile chip's larger L2 cache and newer 10 nm process node appear to provide a per-core efficiency that the older 14 nm desktop chip cannot match.

The Intel Core i5-10600KF, however, is the better option for workloads that scale with thread count and benefit from higher sustained multi-core throughput. Its 19.3% win in GeekBench multi-core, 19.5% lead in PassMark physics, and 17.9% advantage in random string sorting indicate strengths in simulation, data processing, and compression tasks. The desktop chip's higher base and boost clocks, along with its unlocked multiplier, also make it a more flexible platform for users who want to overclock and extract additional performance.

For gaming, the data is nuanced. The i5-11400H wins at lower thread counts (2 and 4 threads), which matters for older games, while the i5-10600KF wins at 8, 16, and max threads, which is more relevant for modern titles that use more cores. The 3DMark max threads result favors the desktop chip by 3.7%.

The database records the i5-10600KF with an average benchmark score of 16228 and a 70th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the i5-11400H posts a 15749 average and a 69th percentile. The i5-10600KF sits within 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-10850H and 0.5% of the Intel Core 3 100U. The i5-11400H is essentially tied with the AMD EPYC 9254 at 0% delta and sits within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 3 7440U.

The verdict depends on the intended use case. For a mobile workstation or a laptop that needs to handle encryption, math, and single-threaded applications efficiently, the i5-11400H is the clear winner from this data. For a desktop system where overclocking, multi-threaded physics, and data compression are priorities, the i5-10600KF holds the advantage. The i5-11400H wins more individual benchmarks, but the i5-10600KF's wins are often by larger margins in key multi-threaded areas. Both processors are active in production, and the choice should be guided by the specific workload profile rather than a single overall score.