Intel Core i5-12400F vs Intel Core i5-13420H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a clear picture of a desktop part that consistently outmuscles a mobile chip in sustained workloads. The Intel Core i5-12400F wins 19 of the 23 head-to-head comparisons, with the Intel Core i5-13420H taking only 4. The margins, however, tell a more nuanced story about where each processor excels.

The 12400F’s most decisive victories come in compute-heavy tasks. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the desktop chip scores 6980 against 6013 for the 13420H, a 16.1% advantage. The single-core result in the same test is even more lopsided: 985 versus 848, a 16.2% lead. Cinebench R23 multicore shows an 11.7% gap, with the 12400F posting 12380 to the 13420H’s 11084. These are not trivial differences; they indicate a substantial edge in rendering and CPU-bound productivity.

PassMark’s extended instructions test delivers the largest percentage gap of the entire comparison. The 12400F scores 15834, while the 13420H manages 12897, a 22.8% delta. Prime number finding is even more one-sided in relative terms: 72 versus 52, a 38.5% advantage for the desktop part. Floating point math also favors the 12400F, which scores 46759 against 42806, a 9.2% lead. Physics performance shows an 18.8% gap, with scores of 1202 and 1012 respectively.

The 12400F also wins the broader multithreaded tests. PassMark multithread shows 19433 versus 17475, an 11.2% margin. Data compression favors the desktop chip at 233327 versus 209450, an 11.4% lead. Even the 3DMark suites, which simulate mixed workloads, lean toward the 12400F in 16-thread (5895 versus 5518, 6.8%) and max-thread (5912 versus 5587, 5.8%) runs. The 8-thread test goes to the 12400F by a slimmer 3.6% margin, with scores of 4779 and 4614.

The 13420H’s wins are concentrated in lighter-threaded workloads. The 3DMark 2-thread test goes to the mobile chip, 1871 versus 1699, a 9.2% advantage. The 4-thread test also favors the 13420H, 3357 versus 3067, an 8.6% lead. Single-thread performance in 3DMark is closer but still favors the mobile part: 948 versus 909, a 4.1% margin. Cinebench R23 single-core is nearly a dead heat, with the 13420H edging ahead 1689 versus 1680, a 0.5% difference.

Interestingly, the 12400F wins the Cinebench R15 single-core test (244 versus 238, 2.5%) and the PassMark single-thread test (3481 versus 3396, 2.5%), meaning the mobile chip’s single-thread advantage is not universal. The 13420H’s wins are real but narrow, while the 12400F’s victories in multicore workloads are often double-digit.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and target different market segments. The 12400F is an Alder Lake desktop part, part of the Core 12th Gen family, built on Intel’s 10 nm process at a die size of 163 mm². The 13420H is a Raptor Lake mobile chip from Core 13th Gen, also on a 10 nm node, but with no die size recorded in the database.

Core counts differ meaningfully. The 12400F has 6 cores and 12 threads. The 13420H has 8 cores but also 12 threads, indicating that two of its cores do not contribute additional thread count, a hybrid arrangement common to mobile Raptor Lake parts. This explains why the desktop chip, despite fewer physical cores, can outperform the mobile chip in heavily threaded benchmarks: its 6 performance-oriented cores sustain higher throughput than the 13420H’s mixed core layout.

Cache configurations also diverge. Both share an 80 KB L1 per core, but the L2 cache differs: 1.25 MB per core on the 12400F versus 2 MB per core on the 13420H. The L3 cache, however, heavily favors the desktop chip: 18 MB shared versus 12 MB shared. That 6 MB difference in L3 is likely a contributor to the 12400F’s strong showing in data compression and extended instruction workloads.

Clock speeds are another differentiator. The 12400F has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost of 4.40 GHz. The 13420H starts lower at 2.10 GHz but boosts higher to 4.60 GHz. The higher boost clock explains the 13420H’s wins in lightly threaded 3DMark tests, where single-core frequency matters most. The lower base clock and mobile thermal envelope, however, hurt it in sustained all-core loads.

The 12400F carries a 65 W TDP, while the 13420H is rated at 45 W. The desktop chip draws more power but also has more room to dissipate heat, which shows in the sustained multicore results. The 13420H integrates Iris Xe Graphics 80EU, while the 12400F has no integrated graphics listed. The 12400F also offers more PCIe connectivity: Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only) versus Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only) on the 13420H. Memory support is identical on paper, with both supporting DDR4 and DDR5 over dual-channel buses.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a straightforward conclusion. The Intel Core i5-12400F is the stronger processor for CPU-intensive desktop workloads. Its Cinebench R20 multicore lead of 16.1%, R23 multicore lead of 11.7%, and PassMark multithread lead of 11.2% make it the clear choice for rendering, compiling, or any task that saturates all cores. The 38.5% advantage in prime number finding and 22.8% lead in extended instructions further reinforce its capability in mathematical and SIMD-heavy code.

The Intel Core i5-13420H is not without merit. Its 9.2% win in 3DMark 2-thread and 8.6% win in 4-thread tests suggest it handles lightly threaded workloads with more agility, likely due to its higher 4.60 GHz boost clock. Its single-thread score in 3DMark is 4.1% higher. For users whose primary applications are lightly threaded, the mobile chip holds a modest edge.

The 12400F also wins the overall average benchmark score, 19039 versus 18511, and sits at the 73rd percentile versus the 13420H’s 72nd. Both chips land near similar rivals in the database: the 12400F trades blows with the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (0% delta) and Intel Core 3 201E (-0.1%), while the 13420H sits alongside the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300GE (0% delta) and Intel Core i3-14100F (0% delta).

For a desktop build, the 12400F is the data-backed pick. For a mobile system where the 13420H is already integrated, its 4-thread and 2-thread advantages are the only areas where it outshines the desktop part. The 12400F’s 19 wins out of 23 comparisons, including nearly all multicore and single-core tests, make it the superior processor in the vast majority of scenarios.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-12400F | Intel Core i5-13420H |

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

| Series | Core 12th Gen | Core 13th Gen |

| Cores | 6 | 8 |

| Threads | 12 | 12 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 1744 |

| Architecture | Alder Lake | Raptor Lake |

| Codename | Alder Lake-S | Raptor Lake-H |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 10 nm |

| Die Size | 163 mm² | Not recorded |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

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

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Iris Xe Graphics 80EU |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2022-01-03 | 2023-01-03 |

| Launch MSRP | $174 | Not recorded |

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i5-12400F wins 19 of 23 comparisons, while the Intel Core i5-13420H wins 4.

Q: Where does the 13420H outperform the 12400F?

A: The 13420H wins in 3DMark 2-thread (1871 versus 1699, 9.2%), 3DMark 4-thread (3357 versus 3067, 8.6%), 3DMark single-thread (948 versus 909, 4.1%), and Cinebench R23 single-core (1689 versus 1680, 0.5%).

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the 12400F scores 72 versus 52, a 38.5% advantage.

Q: How do the core and cache configurations differ?

A: The 12400F has 6 cores with 1.25 MB L2 per core and 18 MB shared L3. The 13420H has 8 cores with 2 MB L2 per core but only 12 MB shared L3.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The 13420H boosts to 4.60 GHz, while the 12400F boosts to 4.40 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 over dual-channel memory buses. Neither supports ECC memory.