Intel Core i5-11400F vs Intel Core i7-1260P Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-11400F posts an average benchmark score of 17,177, while the Intel Core i7-1260P scores 17,007. The difference is only 1%, placing both within the same performance tier.

Q: How do these chips compare in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The i5-11400F wins the majority of multi-threaded tests, including a 47.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core (14,340 vs. 9,711) and a 38% advantage in 3DMark 16-thread (5,619 vs. 4,072). However, the i7-1260P wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 11.1% (1,626 vs. 1,445).

Q: Which processor has better single-core performance?

A: The i7-1260P takes single-core tests. It leads by 5.1% in 3DMark single-thread (915 vs. 868), by 16% in Cinebench R15 single-core (243 vs. 204), and by 8.3% in PassMark single-thread (3,250 vs. 2,981).

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The i5-11400F has 6 cores and 12 threads. The i7-1260P has 12 cores and 16 threads, using a hybrid architecture with performance and efficiency cores.

Q: Do these processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The i5-11400F supports DDR4 only, while the i7-1260P supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Are there integrated graphics in either chip?

A: The i5-11400F has no integrated graphics. The i7-1260P includes Iris Xe 96EU integrated graphics, making it suitable for systems without a discrete GPU.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-11400F dominates in sustained multi-threaded workloads that scale with raw core throughput. Its wins include a massive 48.5% margin in 3DMark 8-thread (4,691 vs. 3,159), a 47.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, and a 42.7% advantage in PassMark extended instructions (14,976 vs. 10,493). The 3DMark 16-thread result (5,619 vs. 4,072) shows a 38% edge, and Cinebench R20 multi-core adds another win at 2.5% (6,022 vs. 5,874). Data compression also favors the desktop chip by 13.9% (208,472 vs. 182,968).

The Intel Core i7-1260P counters in lighter-threaded and math-heavy scenarios. It wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 11.1% (1,626 vs. 1,445), a result that likely reflects its higher boost clock and newer core design under shorter bursts. The i7 also takes PassMark floating-point math by 19.5% (42,417 vs. 34,127), integer math by 7.5% (62,316 vs. 57,624), and physics by 22.9% (1,092 vs. 842). Single-thread tests consistently favor the mobile chip: 3DMark single-thread (915 vs. 868), Cinebench R15 single-core (243 vs. 204), and PassMark single-thread (3,250 vs. 2,981).

In the overall win count, the i5-11400F takes 13 benchmark wins versus 10 for the i7-1260P. The margin is narrow, but the i5's victories are often larger in magnitude, particularly in multi-core scaling tests.

Architecture Differences

The i5-11400F uses Rocket Lake, built on Intel's 14 nm process, while the i7-1260P uses Alder Lake on 10 nm. This node difference explains part of the efficiency gap: the i5 has a 65W TDP versus 28W for the i7. The i5 is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1200, whereas the i7 is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 1744.

Core configuration diverges sharply. The i5 offers 6 cores and 12 threads with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and boost of 4.40 GHz. The i7 has 12 cores and 16 threads with a base of 2.10 GHz and boost of 4.70 GHz. The i7's hybrid design pairs performance and efficiency cores, which explains the higher thread count despite a lower base clock.

Cache hierarchies differ in L2 and L3. Both share 80 KB L1 per core, but the i5 has 512 KB L2 per core versus 1.25 MB per core on the i7. Total L3 cache is 12 MB shared on the i5 and 18 MB shared on the i7. The i7's larger L2 and L3 caches support its efficiency-core design.

Memory support also diverges. The i5 supports DDR4 only, while the i7 supports DDR4 and DDR5. The i5 has a specified memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, while the i7's bandwidth is not listed. Both use dual-channel memory buses. PCIe support is identical at Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

The i7 includes Iris Xe 96EU integrated graphics; the i5 has none. The i5 launched on 2021-03-15 with a launch MSRP of $157, while the i7 released on 2022-02-22 with no listed MSRP. The i5 is end-of-life, the i7 remains active.

Specification Differences

| Specification | i5-11400F | i7-1260P |

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

| Cores | 6 | 12 |

| Threads | 12 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.60 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 28 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1200 | Intel BGA 1744 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 10 nm |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | Not listed |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Iris Xe 96EU |

| Release Date | 2021-03-15 | 2022-02-22 |

| Launch MSRP | $157 | Not listed |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

Both CPUs share the same L1 cache size (80 KB per core), dual-channel memory bus, PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, and lack ECC memory support. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The i5-11400F's largest win comes in 3DMark 8-thread, where it scores 4,691 against the i7's 3,159, a 48.5% advantage. This test shows the i5's ability to sustain high throughput across all threads without thermal or power constraints. Cinebench R23 multi-core follows closely: the i5 scores 14,340 versus 9,711, a 47.7% lead. PassMark extended instructions shows a 42.7% gap (14,976 vs. 10,493), and 3DMark 16-thread adds a 38% margin (5,619 vs. 4,072).

The i5 also wins smaller margins in 3DMark 4-thread (24.8%, 3,171 vs. 2,540), PassMark random string sorting (17.2%, 24,124 vs. 20,586), and Cinebench R23 single-core (16.5%, 2,024 vs. 1,737.5). Data compression favors the i5 by 13.9% (208,472 vs. 182,968), and 3DMark 2-thread shows a modest 5.6% edge (1,691 vs. 1,601). Cinebench R20 multi-core and single-core both go to the i5 by 2.5%, and PassMark multithread shows a razor-thin 0.8% lead (16,908 vs. 16,775).

The i7-1260P's strongest win is PassMark physics at 22.9% (1,092 vs. 842), followed by PassMark floating-point math at 19.5% (42,417 vs. 34,127). Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 16% lead (243 vs. 204), and Cinebench R15 multi-core wins by 11.1% (1,626 vs. 1,445). PassMark single-thread goes to the i7 by 8.3% (3,250 vs. 2,981), as does the duplicate PassMark single-thread test. Data encryption favors the i7 by 8.8% (11,238 vs. 10,247), integer math by 7.5% (62,316 vs. 57,624), and 3DMark single-thread by 5.1% (915 vs. 868). The i7 also wins PassMark find prime numbers by 19% (63 vs. 51).

The benchmark split is clear: the i5 wins scaling multi-core and compression-style workloads, while the i7 wins math, physics, and single-thread tests. The i5's wins are larger in percentage terms, but the i7's victories are more numerous in specialized domains.

The Verdict

Choose the Intel Core i5-11400F if you need maximum multi-threaded throughput in a desktop context. It leads by 47.7% in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 38% in 3DMark 16-thread, and 42.7% in extended instructions. The 65W TDP and Socket 1200 suggest a traditional desktop build with a discrete GPU, since no integrated graphics are present. Its 13 wins versus 10 for the i7, combined with an average benchmark score of 17,177 (71st percentile), make it the stronger all-around performer for sustained workloads.

Choose the Intel Core i7-1260P for mobile systems where power efficiency and single-thread speed matter. Its 28W TDP enables thinner laptops, and the integrated Iris Xe 96EU graphics remove the need for a separate GPU. The i7 wins physics by 22.9%, floating-point math by 19.5%, and single-thread tests by up to 16%. Its 70th percentile ranking and average score of 17,007 sit nearly level with the i5, but the i7's advantages appear in math-heavy and lightly threaded tasks.

Data does not support a clear overall winner. The i5-11400F leads in average score by 1% and wins more benchmarks. The i7-1260P counters with a newer 10 nm process, more cores, larger caches, and DDR5 support. If the workload is rendering, compression, or multi-threaded 3DMark, the i5 wins decisively. If the workload is physics simulation, floating-point math, or single-thread responsiveness, the i7 takes it. The i5 is end-of-life; the i7 remains active. For a desktop build prioritizing multi-core performance, the i5-11400F is the verdict. For a mobile system balancing efficiency and single-thread speed, the i7-1260P is the answer.