Intel Core i5-12400 vs Intel Core i5-12400F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the head-to-head comparison is the divergence between Cinebench versions. The Intel Core i5-12400F wins Cinebench R15 multicore by 9.2% (1759 vs 1611) and R15 singlecore by 7.5% (244 vs 227). It also takes Cinebench R20 multicore by 3.9% (6980 vs 6715) and singlecore by 4% (985 vs 947). Yet in Cinebench R23, the pattern flips hard: the Intel Core i5-12400 wins multicore by 22.6% (15989 vs 12380) and singlecore by 25.6% (2257 vs 1680). This is the largest margin in either direction across the entire benchmark set.

Geekbench tells a different story, favoring the F variant. The 12400F leads multicore by 10.6% (9472 vs 8564) and singlecore by 6.3% (1964 vs 1848). Passmark results are consistently in the 12400F's favor, with moderate margins: multithread 3.7% (19433 vs 18747), integer math 2.8% (59995 vs 58366), floating point math 2.8% (46759 vs 45494), and extended instructions 2.8% (15834 vs 15399). The physics test shows a larger gap at 8.8% (1202 vs 1105).

3DMark results are close, with the 12400F ahead by 0.4% in 16 threads (5895 vs 5873), 0.4% in 2 threads (1699 vs 1692), 1.8% in 4 threads (3067 vs 3012), 0.7% in 8 threads (4779 vs 4745), and 0.4% in max threads (5912 vs 5890). The single-thread 3DMark test is the only 3DMark win for the 12400, at 910 vs 909, a 0.1% edge.

Data-centric workloads lean toward the 12400F: data compression 2.8% (233327 vs 226908), data encryption 2.3% (11679 vs 11418), random string sorting 2.7% (22975 vs 22366), and find prime numbers 5.9% (72 vs 68). The overall win count is lopsided: 22 wins for the 12400F versus 3 wins for the 12400.

Average benchmark scores place the 12400F at 19039, which sits in the 73rd percentile of all CPUs, while the 12400 averages 18683 at the 72nd percentile. The 12400F's nearest rival by average score is the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS at 19047 (0% delta), followed by the Intel Core 3 201E at 19056 (-0.1% delta). The 12400's closest rivals are the AMD EPYC 7643 at 18697 (-0.1% delta) and the Intel Core i7-1355U at 18730 (-0.3% delta).

The Verdict

The recorded data does not support a simple "better CPU" verdict because the two processors swap leadership depending on the benchmark generation. The 12400F dominates in Geekbench, Passmark, and 3DMark, while the 12400 wins decisively in Cinebench R23. This split suggests the two chips may perform differently under varying workload optimizations, even though their core architecture is essentially identical.

For users prioritizing the Cinebench R23 results specifically, the 12400 is the clear choice, as its 15989 multicore and 2257 singlecore scores are far ahead of the 12400F's 12380 and 1680. For everything else in the benchmark suite, the 12400F is ahead, often by single-digit percentages, with the Geekbench multicore gap of 10.6% being the largest non-Cinebench difference.

The 12400's integrated UHD Graphics 730 is the only functional advantage it holds over the 12400F, which has no integrated graphics. This matters for systems without a discrete GPU, because the 12400 can output video on its own while the 12400F cannot. The database shows no other hardware difference in core counts, clock speeds, cache, or memory support.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the Alder Lake architecture with the Alder Lake-S codename, using a 10 nm process node from Intel. Each has 6 cores and 12 threads, with identical base and boost clocks of 2.50 GHz and 4.40 GHz respectively. The L1 cache is 80 KB per core, L2 is 1.25 MB per core, and L3 is 18 MB shared. Die size is 163 mm² for both.

The key architectural distinction is the integrated graphics unit. The 12400 includes UHD Graphics 730, while the 12400F has no integrated graphics at all. This is the F-series designation: the "F" suffix indicates a chip without the graphics engine enabled. The absence of integrated graphics does not alter CPU-side performance in the recorded benchmarks, but it does change system requirements, since a discrete GPU becomes mandatory for display output.

Memory support is identical: both accept DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, and neither supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs slightly: the 12400F lists Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 12400 lists Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). This is a small but concrete difference in expansion capability.

Both chips are locked (multiplier not unlocked), target the desktop market segment, and remain in active production. They share the same release date of 2022-01-03 and belong to the Core 12th Gen series.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-12400F | Intel Core i5-12400 |

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

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics 730 |

| PCIe Lanes (CPU only) | 20 Lanes | 16 Lanes |

| Launch MSRP | $174 | $199 |

All other recorded specifications are identical: 6 cores, 12 threads, 2.50 GHz base clock, 4.40 GHz boost clock, 65 W TDP, Intel Socket 1700, 10 nm process, 163 mm² die size, 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, 18 MB L3 shared, DDR4/DDR5 dual-channel memory support, no ECC, no unlocked multiplier, and the same Alder Lake-S codename.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-12400F has an average benchmark score of 19039, compared to 18683 for the Intel Core i5-12400. This places the 12400F in the 73rd percentile of all CPUs, while the 12400 sits in the 72nd percentile.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-12400F have integrated graphics?

A: No. The 12400F has no integrated graphics, whereas the 12400 includes UHD Graphics 730. This means the 12400F requires a discrete GPU for display output, while the 12400 can operate with a motherboard's display outputs.

Q: Which CPU wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core i5-12400 wins by a significant margin, scoring 15989 versus the 12400F's 12380, a delta of 22.6% in favor of the 12400.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin in the head-to-head data?

A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R23 singlecore, where the Intel Core i5-12400 leads by 25.6% (2257 vs 1680). The second largest is the Cinebench R23 multicore gap at 22.6%.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each CPU have in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Core i5-12400F wins 22 benchmarks, while the Intel Core i5-12400 wins 3 benchmarks.

Q: Are the clock speeds different between the two CPUs?

A: No. Both have a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-12400F is the dominant performer in the majority of recorded tests. Its wins span 3DMark, Geekbench, and the entire Passmark suite, including multithread, single-thread, integer math, floating point math, data compression, data encryption, random string sorting, extended instructions, physics, and prime number finding. The Geekbench multicore margin of 10.6% is the standout for this chip, suggesting strong performance in general-purpose multi-threaded workloads as measured by that benchmark.

The Intel Core i5-12400 wins only in Cinebench R23 multicore and singlecore, plus a marginal 3DMark single-thread result. The Cinebench R23 margins are substantial: 22.6% multicore and 25.6% singlecore. This indicates that in the specific rendering workload of Cinebench R23, the 12400 is markedly faster, despite the 12400F winning the older Cinebench R15 and R20 tests.

For system builders, the choice hinges on graphics needs and benchmark priorities. The 12400F offers the higher average score and wins most tests, but its lack of integrated graphics is a hard requirement for a discrete GPU. The 12400 provides integrated graphics and wins the Cinebench R23 tests, which may matter for users focused on that specific rendering benchmark. The PCIe lane difference (20 vs 16) also favors the 12400F for expansion-heavy configurations, though the real-world impact depends on the number of devices connected.

The data does not indicate a universal winner. The 12400F is ahead in 22 of 25 head-to-head comparisons, but the 12400's Cinebench R23 performance is so far ahead that it cannot be dismissed. Users should weigh whether their workloads resemble Cinebench R23 or the broader mix of Geekbench, Passmark, and 3DMark tests.