Intel Core i5-1145G7E vs Intel Core i5-9400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core i5-1145G7E wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, taking all six recorded tests. The margin is remarkably consistent across both single-core and multi-core workloads. In Cinebench R15, the i5-1145G7E scores 757 in multi-core against the i5-9400’s 668, a delta of 11.8%. The single-core test shows a similar gap: 106 versus 94, a delta of 11.3%. This consistency suggests the efficiency advantage is architectural, not workload-specific.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The i5-1145G7E posts 3156 in multi-core, while the i5-9400 manages 2784, again an 11.8% difference. In single-core R20, the gap widens slightly to 11.9%, with scores of 445 and 392 respectively. The most recent Cinebench R23 results reinforce this dominance: 7516 versus 6629 in multi-core (11.8% delta) and 1061 versus 935 in single-core (11.9% delta). No test shows the i5-9400 ahead, and the margins are nearly identical across all three Cinebench versions, indicating a stable performance hierarchy.

The average benchmark score tells a slightly different story. The i5-9400 averages 2254, while the i5-1145G7E averages 2174. This is because the database includes Geekbench scores for the i5-9400 (5141 multi-core, 1389 single-core) that are not recorded for the i5-1145G7E, skewing the aggregate. When comparing only the shared Cinebench tests, the i5-1145G7E is clearly superior. The i5-9400’s percentile ranking is 47th, as is the i5-1145G7E’s, placing both in the middle of the global CPU pool, but the head-to-head data leaves no ambiguity about which is faster in rendering workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The i5-1145G7E wins in every category measured by the shared benchmarks. It is faster in both single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench tests, which translates to advantages in both lightly-threaded applications (like web browsing, office productivity, and casual gaming) and heavily-threaded tasks (like video encoding, 3D rendering, and batch photo processing). The single-core margins of 11.3% to 11.9% are particularly notable because they show the i5-1145G7E’s newer Willow Cove architecture extracts more instructions per clock than the i5-9400’s Coffee Lake design, even though both boost to the same 4.10 GHz maximum.

The multi-core wins are more surprising given the core count disparity. The i5-9400 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the i5-1145G7E has only 4 cores but 8 threads. The i5-1145G7E’s 11.8% multi-core advantage comes from its hyper-threading capability allowing better utilization of each physical core, combined with the IPC gains from the newer architecture. This means the i5-1145G7E is the better choice for users who need strong multi-core performance but cannot afford the power or space demands of a larger desktop chip.

For the i5-9400, its wins are not in raw speed but in ecosystem fit. It uses the Intel Socket 1151, a standard desktop platform, while the i5-1145G7E is soldered to a BGA 1449 mobile package. The i5-9400 supports DDR4 memory with a 42.7 GB/s bandwidth figure, while the i5-1145G7E’s memory bandwidth is not recorded in the database. The i5-9400 also has more PCIe lanes (16 Gen 3 lanes) compared to the i5-1145G7E (4 Gen 4 lanes), which matters for desktop users with multiple expansion cards or high-end GPUs. However, in pure compute benchmarks, the i5-1145G7E is the undisputed victor.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Core i5-1145G7E for anyone prioritizing raw CPU performance. Despite having two fewer physical cores, it outperforms the i5-9400 by approximately 12% in every Cinebench test, both single and multi-core. This is a direct result of the Tiger Lake architecture’s IPC improvements and the 8 threads enabled by hyper-threading. The i5-1145G7E is the correct choice for users who want the fastest possible rendering scores, especially in compact or mobile systems where the 28 W TDP is a critical constraint.

The i5-9400 remains viable for desktop builders who value platform flexibility. Its 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes support more expansion options, and the Socket 1151 allows for future CPU upgrades within that socket generation. Its 65 W TDP is higher, but that is expected for a desktop part with more physical cores. However, the benchmark results show that the i5-9400 cannot match the i5-1145G7E in compute performance, so it should only be selected when the desktop-specific features (socket, PCIe lane count) are essential.

For mobile users, the i5-1145G7E is the obvious pick. It is an active production part with a launch MSRP of $312, and its 10 nm process node delivers superior performance per watt compared to the i5-9400’s 14 nm node. The i5-9400 is end-of-life, meaning no further optimization or support is expected. The verdict is simple: the i5-1145G7E wins on every performance metric, and the i5-9400 wins only on desktop ecosystem compatibility.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core rendering?

A: The Intel Core i5-1145G7E wins all multi-core Cinebench tests. In R23, it scores 7516 versus the i5-9400’s 6629, an 11.8% advantage. This holds despite the i5-9400 having 6 cores versus 4 for the i5-1145G7E, because the latter has 8 threads and a newer architecture.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: The i5-1145G7E leads by 11.3% to 11.9% across all Cinebench versions. For example, in R20 single-core, it scores 445 versus 392 for the i5-9400. Both CPUs boost to 4.10 GHz, so the difference comes from instructions per clock, not clock speed.

Q: Is the i5-9400 better for desktop upgrades?

A: Yes, the i5-9400 uses the Intel Socket 1151 and supports 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, allowing more expansion cards and easier replacement. The i5-1145G7E is soldered to a BGA 1449 mobile socket with only 4 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, making it unsuitable for traditional desktop builds.

Q: What about memory support?

A: The i5-9400 supports DDR4 with a recorded bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The i5-1145G7E supports both DDR4 and LPDDR4X, but its bandwidth figure is not listed in the database. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Why does the i5-9400 have a higher average benchmark score?

A: The database includes Geekbench scores for the i5-9400 (5141 multi-core, 1389 single-core) but not for the i5-1145G7E. This inflates the i5-9400’s average to 2254 versus 2174 for the i5-1145G7E. In the shared Cinebench tests, the i5-1145G7E is consistently faster.

Q: Which CPU has better integrated graphics?

A: The i5-1145G7E features Iris Xe Graphics G7 with 80 execution units, while the i5-9400 has UHD 630. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, but the hardware specifications indicate a significant generational upgrade for the i5-1145G7E.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from different Intel architecture eras. The i5-9400 uses Coffee Lake, a 14 nm design from the Core i5 (Coffee Lake Refresh) generation, released in late 2018. It is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP and a socketed design (Intel Socket 1151). The i5-1145G7E uses Tiger Lake-U, a 10 nm design from the Core i5 (Willow Cove-U) generation, released in September 2020. It is a mobile part with a 28 W TDP and a soldered BGA 1449 package.

The cache hierarchy differs substantially. The i5-9400 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 9 MB of shared L3. The i5-1145G7E has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the i5-1145G7E contribute to its higher IPC. The i5-1145G7E also has a smaller die at 144 mm², though the i5-9400’s die size is not recorded.

PCIe support is a major differentiator. The i5-9400 offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the i5-1145G7E offers Gen 4 with only 4 lanes. This reflects the mobile design focus of the i5-1145G7E, where chipset-based expansion is more common. The i5-9400 also has a higher memory bandwidth figure (42.7 GB/s) compared to no recorded value for the i5-1145G7E, though both use dual-channel configurations.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: the i5-9400 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the i5-1145G7E has 4 cores and 8 threads. The base clock is drastically different: the i5-9400 runs at 2.90 GHz, while the i5-1145G7E has a 1500.00 MHz base clock (1.50 GHz). Both boost to 4.10 GHz, so the i5-1145G7E relies on a much wider clock range. The TDP values are 65 W for the i5-9400 and 28 W for the i5-1145G7E.

The process node differs: 14 nm for the i5-9400 versus 10 nm for the i5-1145G7E. The i5-9400 uses a socketed Intel Socket 1151, while the i5-1145G7E uses the soldered Intel BGA 1449. Memory support is narrower on the i5-9400 (DDR4 only) versus DDR4 and LPDDR4X on the i5-1145G7E. The integrated graphics are different: UHD 630 on the i5-9400 versus Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EU on the i5-1145G7E.

Production status separates the two: the i5-9400 is end-of-life, while the i5-1145G7E is active. The release dates are October 2018 for the i5-9400 and September 2020 for the i5-1145G7E. The i5-1145G7E has a recorded launch MSRP of $312, while the i5-9400 has none listed. Both have locked multipliers and do not support ECC memory. The part numbers are SR3X5 for the i5-9400 and SRK0Z for the i5-1145G7E.