Intel Core i5-12400F vs Intel Core i5-1335U Comparison

The Intel Core i5-12400F and Intel Core i5-1335U occupy different corners of the Intel lineup, yet their aggregate benchmark scores land them within 0.3% of each other. The 12400F is a desktop part built for sustained performance, while the 1335U is a mobile processor engineered for efficiency. The data reveals a clear split: the desktop chip wins 16 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, but the mobile chip claims the single most important modern metric—single-threaded Cinebench R23 performance—by a razor-thin margin. This is not a story of one chip being universally superior; it is a story of workload-specific dominance.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-12400F is the undisputed multi-threaded workhorse. Across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests, it leads by margins ranging from 20.2% to 41.4%. The largest gap appears in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the 12400F scores 6980 against the 1335U's 4935—a 41.4% advantage. This pattern extends to PassMark's multithreaded suite, where the 12400F posts 19433 versus 14281, a 36.1% lead. The desktop chip also dominates in extended instruction workloads, scoring 15834 in PassMark's extended instructions test, which is 76.4% higher than the 1335U's 8974. For anyone running video renders, code compilation, or scientific simulations, the 12400F is the clear choice.

The Intel Core i5-1335U wins exactly one benchmark: Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 1684.5 against the 12400F's 1680—a 0.3% edge. This is a narrow victory, but it signals that the mobile chip's peak clock speed of 4.60 GHz can translate into competitive single-threaded responsiveness. In lighter, bursty workloads like web browsing, office applications, or even some gaming scenarios that rely on a single strong core, the 1335U does not fall behind. Its 10-core hybrid configuration, while slower in aggregate, does not handicap it in short, single-threaded bursts.

The 12400F also wins all PassMark single-threaded tests, but by a much smaller margin—4.3% (3481 versus 3336). This suggests that the 1335U is not far off in everyday responsiveness, but the 12400F still holds a measurable advantage. The 1335U's single-core Cinebench R23 win appears to be an outlier, possibly due to boost behavior or thermal headroom in that specific test, but it remains a legitimate data point.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher aggregate benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-12400F has an average benchmark score of 19039, while the Intel Core i5-1335U scores 18982. The difference is 0.3%, placing both chips in the 73rd percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Is the 1335U competitive in multi-core workloads despite having more cores?

A: No. Despite having 10 cores to the 12400F's 6, the 1335U loses every multi-core benchmark. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the 12400F scores 12380 versus 8889.5, a 39.3% lead. The 1335U's higher core count does not translate into throughput.

Q: What is the most significant performance gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark's extended instructions test, where the 12400F scores 15834 against the 1335U's 8974—a 76.4% advantage. This indicates a massive difference in SIMD or specialized instruction throughput.

Q: Does the 1335U have any advantage in single-threaded performance?

A: Yes, but only in one test. The 1335U wins Cinebench R23 single-core with 1684.5 versus 1680, a 0.3% margin. In all other single-threaded tests, the 12400F wins, with a 4.3% lead in PassMark single-thread (3481 versus 3336).

Q: How close are these chips in overall performance?

A: In terms of average benchmark scores, they are nearly identical—19039 for the 12400F and 18982 for the 1335U. The deltaPct between them is 0.3%, making them statistically similar in aggregate, despite very different workload distributions.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock, and does it matter?

A: The 1335U has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, while the 12400F boosts to 4.40 GHz. The 1335U's higher boost likely contributes to its Cinebench R23 single-core win, but the 12400F still wins other single-threaded tests, suggesting clock speed alone does not determine the outcome.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite paints a stark picture. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 12400F scores 1759 against 1464, a 20.2% win. The gap widens dramatically in R20 multicore: 6980 versus 4935, a 41.4% margin. In R23 multicore, the 12400F scores 12380 versus 8889.5, a 39.3% lead. These are not marginal differences—they represent a full performance tier. The 12400F's 6 cores and 12 threads, running at a 65W TDP, deliver sustained throughput that the 15W mobile chip cannot match.

Single-core results are more nuanced. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the 12400F wins 244 to 238 (2.5%). In R20 single-core, it wins 985 to 696 (41.5%). But in R23 single-core, the 1335U pulls ahead 1684.5 to 1680 (-0.3%). This inconsistency is curious. The R20 single-core result, with a 41.5% gap, is suspiciously large compared to the R15 and R23 results, but it is the data provided. It suggests that the 12400F's performance in that specific test is exceptional, or that the 1335U's mobile power management throttles in certain conditions.

The PassMark suite reinforces the 12400F's dominance. In data compression, the 12400F scores 233327 against 159593—a 46.2% lead. In floating-point math, it scores 46759 versus 35176, a 32.9% advantage. Integer math shows a 17.1% gap (59995 versus 51244). The 12400F also wins physics (1202 versus 837, 43.6%), random string sorting (22975 versus 17953, 28%), and find prime numbers (72 versus 48, 50%). The only PassMark test the 1335U comes close to winning is data encryption, where the 12400F leads 11679 to 10009—a 16.7% margin, which is still decisive.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ fundamentally in their intended use. The 12400F is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1700, while the 1335U is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 1744. The 12400F has a TDP of 65W, compared to the 1335U's 15W. This power envelope explains the performance gap in sustained workloads.

Core configuration differs: the 12400F has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the 1335U has 10 cores and 12 threads. The 1335U's extra cores do not help in benchmarks, likely due to lower per-core performance and thermal constraints. Base clocks are vastly different—the 12400F runs at 2.50 GHz, while the 1335U has a base clock of 1300.00 MHz. Boost clocks are closer: 4.40 GHz for the 12400F and 4.60 GHz for the 1335U.

Cache allocation is another differentiator. The 12400F has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 1335U has 12 MB. L1 and L2 caches are identical at 80 KB per core and 1.25 MB per core, respectively. Memory support is the same (DDR4, DDR5, dual-channel), but PCIe capability differs: the 12400F supports Gen 5 with 20 lanes, while the 1335U supports Gen 4 with 8 lanes. The 1335U includes integrated Iris Xe Graphics 80EU, while the 12400F has none.

Release dates differ by one year: the 12400F launched on 2022-01-03, and the 1335U on 2023-01-03. The 12400F has a launch MSRP of $174, while the 1335U has a launch MSRP of $340.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's 10 nm process node, but they belong to different architectural generations. The 12400F uses Alder Lake (codename Alder Lake-S), while the 1335U uses Raptor Lake (codename Raptor Lake-U). The 12400F is a desktop variant of Alder Lake, while the 1335U is a mobile variant of Raptor Lake.

The die size is listed for the 12400F at 163 mm², but no die size is provided for the 1335U. This suggests the mobile chip may have a different physical layout, though the data does not specify. Neither chip has a listed transistor count.

The 1335U's integrated graphics (Iris Xe Graphics 80EU) is a major architectural addition absent from the 12400F. This makes the 1335U a more complete package for a laptop, where a discrete GPU is not guaranteed. The 12400F, being a desktop part without integrated graphics, requires a separate GPU for any display output.

The 1335U's Raptor Lake architecture is the newer generation, released one year later. However, the benchmark data shows that newer does not automatically mean faster in multi-threaded workloads. The 1335U's 10-core setup with a 15W TDP is clearly designed for power efficiency, not raw performance.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i5-12400F is the faster processor in nearly every measurable way. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, with its largest victories in extended instructions (76.4%), data compression (46.2%), physics (43.6%), and Cinebench R20 multicore (41.4%). For users building a desktop system where power consumption is less critical, the 12400F offers superior multi-threaded performance, more cache, and a lower launch MSRP of $174.

The Intel Core i5-1335U is not without merit. Its single Cinebench R23 single-core win, while narrow, shows that its 4.60 GHz boost clock can match or exceed the 12400F's 4.40 GHz in specific short bursts. Its integrated Iris Xe Graphics 80EU makes it a self-contained mobile solution, and its 15W TDP is suited for laptops where battery life and heat are primary concerns. The 1335U also supports PCIe Gen 4, which is sufficient for most mobile peripherals.

The choice depends on the platform. For a desktop user, the 12400F is the clear winner—it is faster, cheaper at launch, and built for sustained load. For a laptop user who needs integrated graphics and low power draw, the 1335U is the only viable option of the two. The 0.3% aggregate score difference masks a wide gulf in workload-specific performance. The 12400F is a performance chip; the 1335U is a efficiency chip. The benchmarks reflect that division perfectly.