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

# Intel Core i5-8300H vs Intel Core i5-8400T

The Intel Core i5-8400T is the clear winner in this matchup, taking 7 of 8 benchmark comparisons, but the Intel Core i5-8300H holds one decisive single-core advantage that matters for specific workloads. The data shows the 8400T edges ahead in nearly every multi-threaded test, while the 8300H delivers a 16.9% single-core Geekbench victory that cannot be ignored for lightly-threaded applications. Both processors sit at the 45th percentile among all CPUs, making them comparable mid-range parts, but the 8400T's consistent, if modest, multi-core superiority makes it the better default choice. The 8300H belongs in systems prioritizing raw single-thread responsiveness, while the 8400T suits users who need every bit of multi-core throughput available in this class.

The Verdict

Choose the Intel Core i5-8400T if your workloads are multi-threaded. It wins every Cinebench multi-core test, from R15 through R23, with deltas ranging from -0.6% to -2.3% against the 8300H. The 8400T also wins every Cinebench single-core test, though by margins of only -0.5% to -1.1%, which are negligible in practice. Its Geekbench multi-core score of 4011 beats the 8300H's 3920 by 2.3%, reinforcing its multi-threaded edge.

Choose the Intel Core i5-8300H if single-core Geekbench performance is your priority. Its score of 1286 versus the 8400T's 1100 represents a massive 16.9% advantage, the largest gap in this entire comparison. This makes the 8300H the better pick for applications that depend on single-thread responsiveness, such as older games or lightly-threaded productivity tools.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The 8300H averages 2005 across all tests, while the 8400T averages 2001, a difference of just 0.2%. The nearest rivals confirm these are closely matched parts: the 8300H sits 0.2% above the AMD Ryzen 7 2800H, while the 8400T sits 0.2% below it. Neither processor offers a compelling overall advantage, but the 8400T's multi-core consistency gives it the verdict.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Coffee Lake architecture, but they diverge significantly in core configuration and physical design. The 8300H is a mobile part built on Coffee Lake-H, featuring 4 cores and 8 threads. The 8400T is a desktop part on standard Coffee Lake, offering 6 cores but only 6 threads, meaning it lacks hyper-threading entirely.

The process node is identical at 14 nm, with both using Intel as the foundry. However, the die sizes differ notably: the 8300H measures 126 mm², while the 8400T is larger at 154 mm². This size difference reflects the 8400T's additional physical cores, even though its cache configuration is smaller.

Cache hierarchy reveals another key divergence. The 8300H carries 12 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 8400T has only 9 MB. Both processors use 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the 8300H's larger L3 pool partially compensates for its fewer cores. The 8400T's smaller L3 cache, combined with 6 cores sharing it, means each core gets less cache than the 8300H's 4 cores.

The 8400T supports dual-channel memory with a measured bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, while the 8300H lists memory support as DDR4 without a bandwidth figure. Both support DDR4 memory and lack ECC support. The 8400T also specifies PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the 8300H's PCIe configuration is not listed in the data.

Integrated graphics differ nominally: the 8300H features UHD 630, while the 8400T uses UHD Graphics 630. Both are locked processors with no unlocked multiplier. The 8300H uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket for mobile integration, while the 8400T uses the desktop Intel Socket 1151.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The 8400T wins 7 of 8 head-to-head comparisons, but the margins tell a nuanced story. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 8400T scores 633 against the 8300H's 629, a 0.6% advantage. The single-core R15 result shows 89 versus 88, a 1.1% edge for the 8400T. These are near-ties, but they establish a pattern.

Cinebench R20 repeats the multi-core trend: 2638 for the 8400T versus 2622 for the 8300H, again a 0.6% difference. The single-core R20 test gives 372 versus 370, a 0.5% margin. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 6282 versus 6245, with the same 0.6% delta, and single-core R23 delivers 886 versus 881, another 0.6% edge.

Geekbench multi-core shows the largest multi-threaded gap: 4011 for the 8400T versus 3920 for the 8300H, a 2.3% difference. This is the 8400T's most decisive multi-core win. However, Geekbench single-core flips the script entirely: the 8300H scores 1286 against the 8400T's 1100, a 16.9% victory for the mobile chip.

The pattern is clear. The 8400T wins every Cinebench test, but by margins under 1.2%, indicating that its 6 physical cores and 6 threads provide only a slight edge over the 8300H's 4 cores and 8 threads in rendering workloads. The 8300H's hyper-threading helps it stay competitive in multi-core Cinebench tests, while its higher boost clock drives the Geekbench single-core blowout.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The 8300H has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the 8400T has 6 cores and 6 threads. This means the 8300H offers simultaneous multi-threading, while the 8400T does not.

Clock speeds diverge dramatically. The 8300H runs at a base clock of 2.30 GHz with a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The 8400T lists a base clock of 1700.00 MHz, which converts to 1.70 GHz, with a boost clock of 3.30 GHz. The 8300H has both a higher base and higher boost clock, which explains its single-core Geekbench dominance.

Thermal design power differs significantly: the 8300H consumes 45W TDP, while the 8400T operates at 35W TDP. This makes the 8400T more power-efficient in terms of rated thermal output, despite having more physical cores.

Cache and socket configurations also differ. The 8300H uses 12 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 8400T uses 9 MB. The 8300H is socketed on Intel BGA 1440, while the 8400T uses Intel Socket 1151. The 8400T is a desktop part, while the 8300H is mobile.

The 8400T has a launch MSRP of $182, which is the only pricing data available. The 8300H has no listed launch MSRP. Both processors are end-of-life, released on the same date, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core i5-8400T wins every multi-core benchmark in the comparison. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 6282 beats the 8300H's 6245, and its Geekbench multi-core score of 4011 beats the 8300H's 3920 by 2.3%.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-8300H have any advantages?

A: Yes, in Geekbench single-core testing. The 8300H scores 1286 versus the 8400T's 1100, a 16.9% advantage. This is the largest delta between the two processors in any benchmark.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The 8300H has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the 8400T has 6 cores and 6 threads. The 8300H uses hyper-threading, while the 8400T does not.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The 8300H has a 45W TDP, while the 8400T has a 35W TDP. The 8400T draws less rated thermal power despite having more physical cores.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The 8300H has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 8400T has 9 MB. The 8300H's larger cache pool helps offset its fewer physical cores.

Q: Are these processors still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. They were released on the same date, and both are locked processors without an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The 8400T dominates in multi-threaded rendering and productivity. Its Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 633, R20 score of 2638, and R23 score of 6282 all beat the 8300H. Geekbench multi-core also favors the 8400T, with 4011 versus 3920. For video encoding, 3D rendering, compilation, or any workload that scales across cores, the 8400T's 6 physical cores provide a measurable, if modest, advantage. The 8400T also wins every single-core Cinebench test, though margins under 1.2% mean these results are effectively ties.

The 8300H wins decisively in Geekbench single-core, scoring 1286 versus 1100. This 16.9% advantage makes it the better choice for applications that depend heavily on single-thread performance, such as legacy software, certain simulation tools, or games with poor multi-threading optimization. The 8300H's higher 3.90 GHz boost clock, compared to the 8400T's 3.30 GHz, directly explains this win. The 8300H also offers 12 MB of L3 cache versus 9 MB, which can help in cache-sensitive workloads.

For users choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload type. Multi-threaded tasks favor the 8400T, which wins 7 of 8 comparisons. Single-thread-sensitive tasks favor the 8300H, which wins the only test that meaningfully isolates this capability. The 8400T's 35W TDP versus the 8300H's 45W TDP also makes it the more thermally efficient option. Neither processor offers a transformative advantage, but the 8400T's broader benchmark sweep makes it the safer default recommendation for most users.