Intel Core i5-8300H vs Intel Core i5-8400H Comparison

The Intel Core i5-8300H and Intel Core i5-8400H are nearly identical twins in the Coffee Lake-H mobile lineup, but the benchmark data reveals a clear split: the i5-8400H wins decisively in Cinebench workloads, while the i5-8300H takes an unexpected lead in Geekbench. This makes the choice between them dependent entirely on the specific application type you prioritize, rather than a blanket "one is better" verdict.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The i5-8400H dominates the Cinebench suite across the board. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 644 against the i5-8300H's 629, a 2.3% advantage. The single-core R15 result is similarly one-sided: 90 versus 88, a 2.2% margin. Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds—the i5-8400H posts 2684 multicore and 378 single-core, while the i5-8300H trails at 2622 and 370, respectively, with deltas of 2.3% and 2.1%. The newest Cinebench R23 test shows the same story: the i5-8400H scores 6392 multicore and 902 single-core, beating the i5-8300H's 6245 and 881 by 2.3% in both runs. Across all six Cinebench tests, the i5-8400H wins with a consistent margin hovering around 2.1–2.3%, which strongly suggests a clock-speed advantage that scales with the workload.

The Geekbench results flip the script. In Geekbench multicore, the i5-8300H scores 3920 versus the i5-8400H's 3656—a substantial 7.2% lead for the i5-8300H. This is a notable outlier, as it contradicts the Cinebench trend. The Geekbench single-core test is nearly a tie: 1286 for the i5-8300H versus 1281 for the i5-8400H, a 0.4% margin that is within noise. The overall win count is 6-2 in favor of the i5-8400H, but the magnitude of the Geekbench multicore victory for the i5-8300H—7.2%—is more than three times larger than any single Cinebench margin. This means the i5-8300H is not merely competitive in Geekbench; it delivers a decisive advantage that could outweigh the i5-8400H's consistent Cinebench wins for certain users.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental architecture: Coffee Lake, built on Intel's 14 nm process at the same foundry, with a die size of 126 mm². The core and thread counts are identical—4 cores and 8 threads—and the cache hierarchy matches perfectly: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. Both use the Intel BGA 1440 socket, support DDR4 memory, feature the integrated UHD 630 graphics, and carry a 45 W TDP. The production status is end-of-life for both, with the same release date of 2018-04-01.

The only architectural differentiators are the clock speeds. The i5-8400H has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, while the i5-8300H operates at 2.30 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost. That 0.20 GHz advantage in base and 0.20 GHz in boost for the i5-8400H explains its Cinebench superiority, but it does not explain the Geekbench multicore reversal. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, and their part numbers (SR3Z1 for the i5-8400H, SR3Z0 for the i5-8300H) are the only other distinguishing identifiers. The memory bus, PCIe configuration, and memory bandwidth are not specified in the data, so any differences there cannot be confirmed.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The i5-8300H has an average benchmark score of 2005, while the i5-8400H scores 2003. The delta is 0.1% in favor of the i5-8300H, making them statistically equivalent overall.

Q: How do they compare in multi-threaded Cinebench R23?

A: The i5-8400H scores 6392 versus the i5-8300H's 6245, a 2.3% advantage. This is consistent with other Cinebench multicore results, where the i5-8400H leads by 2.3% in both R15 and R20.

Q: Does the i5-8300H win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins Geekbench multicore by a 7.2% margin (3920 vs 3656) and Geekbench single-core by 0.4% (1286 vs 1281). It also has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 2005 vs 2003.

Q: Are the clock speeds different?

A: Yes. The i5-8400H has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The i5-8300H has a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz.

Q: Do they have the same cache and core configuration?

A: Yes. Both have 4 cores, 8 threads, 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The die size is also identical at 126 mm².

Q: Which chip ranks higher against all CPUs?

A: Both are at the 45th percentile relative to all CPUs, and their nearest rivals are nearly identical. The i5-8300H's closest rival is the Intel Xeon D-1712TR with a 0% delta, while the i5-8400H's closest is the AMD Ryzen 7 2800H with a 0.1% delta.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in only three documented specification fields. The base clock is 2.30 GHz on the i5-8300H versus 2.50 GHz on the i5-8400H. The boost clock is 3.90 GHz on the i5-8300H versus 4.10 GHz on the i5-8400H. The part number is SR3Z0 for the i5-8300H and SR3Z1 for the i5-8400H. Every other spec—cores, threads, TDP, socket, architecture, process node, die size, cache levels, memory support, integrated graphics, market segment, production status, release date, and unlocked multiplier status—is identical.

The Verdict

The data points to the i5-8400H as the better choice for applications that resemble Cinebench: rendering, video encoding, and other sustained multi-threaded workloads. It wins all six Cinebench tests with a consistent 2.1–2.3% margin, which is a reliable indicator of its clock advantage translating to real-world performance. However, the i5-8300H is not a clear loser—its 7.2% lead in Geekbench multicore is a significant counterweight. Geekbench is often used as a general system performance indicator, and a 7.2% lead there suggests the i5-8300H may perform better in diverse, mixed-use scenarios that Geekbench models. For users who prioritize peak multi-core throughput in rendering or encoding, the i5-8400H is the data-backed pick. For those who value general responsiveness and see Geekbench as a closer proxy for their daily workload mix, the i5-8300H offers a measurable advantage. Given that the average benchmark scores are within 0.1% of each other, the choice should be driven by which benchmark suite best represents your actual usage.

Where Each One Wins

The i5-8400H wins in every Cinebench test, which covers both single-core and multi-core render workloads across three versions of the benchmark. This indicates a clear edge in CPU-bound rendering, 3D modeling, and video encoding tasks that use Cinebench's rendering engine. The margins are small but consistent at 2.1–2.3%, making it the safer bet for professional creative work where every percentage point counts. Its higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz versus 3.90 GHz is the likely driver.

The i5-8300H wins in Geekbench, particularly in multicore where its 7.2% lead is the largest margin in any head-to-head test. This suggests it may have better memory latency handling or other microarchitectural efficiencies that Geekbench exposes, despite its lower clocks. Its single-core Geekbench win is marginal at 0.4%, but the multicore result is decisive. For users whose workloads resemble Geekbench's mix of encryption, image processing, and compression tasks, the i5-8300H is the better performer. It also edges out the i5-8400H in the overall average benchmark score (2005 vs 2003), meaning that if you average all tests equally, the i5-8300H is nominally ahead.