Intel Core i5-9400F vs Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL and the Intel Core i5-9400F represent two distinct generations of Intel desktop design, yet their average benchmark scores are nearly identical. The data places the Ultra 3 105UL at an average score of 13061, while the i5-9400F sits at 13041, a negligible 0.2% difference that places them as direct rivals in the same performance tier. This parity is remarkable given that the Ultra 3 105UL is a 15-watt part built on a 7nm process, while the i5-9400F is a 65-watt, 14nm chip from an older era. The benchmark results show that while the overall average is close, the two processors win in entirely different types of workloads, making the choice between them a question of specific use cases rather than raw speed.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 13061, compared to the Intel Core i5-9400F's 13041. This puts the Ultra 3 just 0.2% ahead of the i5-9400F in overall performance.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-core rendering workloads?

A: The Ultra 3 105UL consistently wins in Cinebench multi-core tests. It scores 8742 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus the i5-9400F's 8040, an 8.7% advantage. Similar leads appear in R15 (881 vs 810) and R20 (3671 vs 3376) multi-core tests.

Q: Are there any workloads where the older i5-9400F wins?

A: Yes, the i5-9400F wins in three specific PassMark tests: data compression (132877 vs 93961), extended instructions (11684 vs 5634), and random string sorting (16298 vs 11179). Its data compression score is 29.3% higher, and its extended instructions score is 51.8% higher.

Q: What is the difference in single-thread performance?

A: The Ultra 3 105UL is substantially faster in single-threaded tasks. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 3382 versus 2428 for the i5-9400F, a 39.3% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a smaller but consistent 8.7% lead for the Ultra 3 (1234 vs 1135).

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Ultra 3 105UL has 8 cores and 10 threads, while the i5-9400F has 6 cores and 6 threads. This means the Ultra 3 offers two additional cores and four additional threads for parallel workloads.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth specifications differ?

A: The Ultra 3 105UL supports DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the i5-9400F uses DDR4 with a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The Ultra 3's memory bandwidth is more than double that of the i5-9400F.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data creates a clear split. The Ultra 3 105UL dominates in most compute-heavy tasks, while the i5-9400F holds a surprising edge in specific data manipulation workloads. Out of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, the Ultra 3 wins 14, while the i5-9400F wins only 3.

The i5-9400F's wins are all in PassMark tests that involve moving or transforming data. Its data compression score of 132877 is 29.3% higher than the Ultra 3's 93961. In random string sorting, it scores 16298 versus 11179, a 31.4% advantage. The most dramatic difference is in extended instructions, where the i5-9400F scores 11684, which is 51.8% higher than the Ultra 3's 5634. These results suggest that for archival, database sorting, or legacy SIMD-heavy applications, the older chip still has a distinct advantage.

The Ultra 3 105UL wins everywhere else, and often by large margins. Its most significant victory is in PassMark integer math, where it scores 41171 against 26155, a 57.4% lead. It also wins floating-point math by 36.9% (30750 vs 22465) and data encryption by 119% (6354 vs 2902). The Ultra 3's single-thread score is 39.3% higher, and its physics score is 10% higher. All Cinebench multi-core and single-core tests show a consistent 8.7-8.8% advantage for the Ultra 3.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is generational. The Ultra 3 105UL is built on Intel's Meteor Lake architecture, specifically the Meteor Lake-PS variant, using a 7nm process node. The i5-9400F uses the older Coffee Lake architecture on a 14nm process. This process difference explains why the Ultra 3 achieves similar overall performance at a 15-watt TDP, compared to the i5-9400F's 65-watt TDP.

The core configurations differ significantly. The Ultra 3 105UL has 8 cores and 10 threads, while the i5-9400F has 6 cores and 6 threads. The cache hierarchy also diverges. The Ultra 3 has 112 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, whereas the i5-9400F has 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core. Both have shared L3 cache, with the Ultra 3 offering 10 MB and the i5-9400F offering 9 MB.

The integrated graphics situation is a major differentiator. The Ultra 3 105UL includes Arc Xe-LPG 48EU integrated graphics, while the i5-9400F has no integrated graphics at all. This makes the Ultra 3 a self-contained solution for basic display output, while the i5-9400F requires a discrete GPU. The memory support also differs: the Ultra 3 uses DDR5 (depending on motherboard) with dual-channel support, while the i5-9400F uses DDR4, also dual-channel.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every core specification. The Ultra 3 105UL has 8 cores and 10 threads, while the i5-9400F has 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clock speeds show the i5-9400F starting higher at 2.90 GHz versus 1.50 GHz for the Ultra 3, but the boost clocks are closer: 4.20 GHz for the Ultra 3 and 4.10 GHz for the i5-9400F. The TDP is a dramatic difference, with the Ultra 3 at 15 watts and the i5-9400F at 65 watts.

The socket and platform differ entirely. The Ultra 3 uses Intel Socket 1851, while the i5-9400F uses Intel Socket 1151. PCIe support also differs: the Ultra 3 offers Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the i5-9400F offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The production status is another key difference, with the Ultra 3 listed as "Active" and the i5-9400F as "End-of-life." The release dates are also far apart, with the Ultra 3 released in 2024 and the i5-9400F in 2019.

Memory bandwidth is a major spec gap: the Ultra 3 supports 89.6 GB/s, while the i5-9400F supports 42.7 GB/s. The integrated graphics are present on the Ultra 3 (Arc Xe-LPG 48EU) and absent on the i5-9400F. The Ultra 3 has a launch MSRP of $295, while no launch MSRP is listed for the i5-9400F.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a uniform pattern: the Ultra 3 105UL wins every test by roughly 8.7-8.8%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 3 scores 881 versus 810, a 8.8% lead. The single-core R15 result is 124 versus 114, also 8.8%. This consistency carries through R20 (3671 vs 3376 multi-core, 518 vs 476 single-core) and R23 (8742 vs 8040 multi-core, 1234 vs 1135 single-core). The data suggests the Ultra 3's higher boost clock and newer architecture provide a steady advantage in rendering workloads.

The PassMark suite reveals where the i5-9400F fights back. Data compression is a decisive win for the i5-9400F, scoring 132877 against 93961, a 29.3% margin. Random string sorting follows a similar pattern, with the i5-9400F scoring 16298 versus 11179, a 31.4% lead. The extended instructions test is the most lopsided win for the i5-9400F, with a score of 11684 against 5634, a 51.8% advantage. These results indicate that the i5-9400F's older architecture has strengths in certain memory-intensive or string-manipulation tasks.

The Ultra 3 105UL's biggest wins come in math and encryption. Integer math shows a 57.4% lead for the Ultra 3 (41171 vs 26155), and floating-point math shows a 36.9% lead (30750 vs 22465). Data encryption is the standout, with the Ultra 3 scoring 6354 versus 2902, a 119% advantage. Single-thread performance is also a major win, with the Ultra 3 scoring 3382 versus 2428, a 39.3% lead. The multithread test shows an 8.8% lead (10285 vs 9455), and physics shows a 10% lead (718 vs 653).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload type. The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL is the better choice for anyone running modern multi-threaded applications, math-heavy computations, encryption, or single-threaded tasks. Its wins in integer math (57.4% ahead), floating-point math (36.9% ahead), and single-thread performance (39.3% ahead) make it the superior processor for general productivity, software development, and everyday responsiveness. The integrated graphics also make it a more versatile platform for basic systems without a discrete GPU.

The Intel Core i5-9400F, despite being end-of-life and on an older 14nm process, still has a niche. Its wins in data compression (29.3% ahead), random string sorting (31.4% ahead), and extended instructions (51.8% ahead) suggest it may be better suited for specific data-processing pipelines, legacy software, or workloads that rely on older SIMD instructions. Its 65-watt TDP and higher base clock also make it a straightforward drop-in for existing Socket 1151 platforms.

For most users, the Ultra 3 105UL is the logical choice, as it wins 14 of 17 benchmarks and offers a far more modern feature set. The i5-9400F is only preferable for those whose workloads specifically match its three winning tests. The overall average scores are nearly identical, but the distribution of wins shows that the Ultra 3 is more broadly capable, while the i5-9400F is a specialized performer in a shrinking set of tasks.