Intel Core i5-9400T vs Intel Core i7-5950HQ Comparison

The Intel Core i7-5950HQ and Intel Core i5-9400T represent two very different approaches to Intel's 14nm process, separated by three years and built for different markets. The data shows a clean split: the i5-9400T takes every Cinebench test, while the i7-5950HQ dominates both Geekbench tests. In the eight head-to-head benchmarks, the i5-9400T wins six, but the i7-5950HQ's two victories are by a much wider margin.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in Geekbench, where the older i7-5950HQ wins decisively. In the multicore test, it scores 4601 against the i5-9400T's 3969, a 15.9% advantage. The single-core gap is even larger: 1353 versus 1152, a 17.4% lead. These are substantial margins that flip the expected outcome based on core count alone.

However, the Cinebench suite tells a different story. The i5-9400T wins every single Cinebench test, but the margins are remarkably consistent and narrow. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i5-9400T scores 695 against 656, a 5.6% edge. The single-core result is similar: 97 versus 92, a 5.2% advantage. Moving to R20, the i5-9400T leads 2896 to 2736 in multicore (5.5%) and 408 to 386 in single-core (5.4%). The R23 results mirror this pattern: 6896 versus 6516 in multicore (5.5%) and 973 versus 920 in single-core (5.4%).

What is notable here is that the i5-9400T's Cinebench margins are almost identical across every version of the test, hovering between 5.2% and 5.6%. This suggests a consistent per-thread performance advantage rather than a scaling benefit from its two extra cores. The i7-5950HQ's Geekbench wins, by contrast, are nearly three times larger in percentage terms, indicating that the benchmark itself rewards whatever architectural advantages the Broadwell chip possesses.

Looking at the aggregate scores, the two CPUs are nearly inseparable. The i7-5950HQ has an average benchmark score of 2158, while the i5-9400T sits at 2136. Both land at the 47th percentile of all CPUs. The nearest rivals for the i7-5950HQ include the Intel Core i5-10200H at 2154 (0.2% ahead) and the AMD Ryzen 3 3300X at 2148 (0.5% behind). The i5-9400T's closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 3 5300U at 2135, a dead-even 0% delta, with the AMD Ryzen 5 7520C at 2127 (0.4% ahead). This means that despite the i5-9400T winning more head-to-head tests, the overall performance picture is essentially a tie.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families. The i7-5950HQ is built on the Broadwell architecture, specifically the Broadwell-H codename, and belongs to the Core i7 (Broadwell-H) generation. It is a mobile part with a 47W TDP and uses the Intel BGA 1364 socket. The i5-9400T is Coffee Lake, part of the Core i5 (Coffee Lake Refresh) generation, a desktop chip with a 35W TDP on Intel Socket 1151.

Both use the same 14nm process node and are fabricated by Intel. The die size differs, however: the i7-5950HQ measures 182 mm², while the i5-9400T's die size is not listed. The core configurations are a key differentiator. The i7-5950HQ has 4 cores and 8 threads, leveraging Hyper-Threading. The i5-9400T has 6 physical cores but only 6 threads, meaning no Hyper-Threading. This gives the i5-9400T two extra physical cores but four fewer logical threads (6 versus 8).

Cache hierarchies are also distinct. Both have 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core. The L3 cache, however, is where the difference lies: the i7-5950HQ has 6 MB shared, while the i5-9400T has 9 MB shared. That is a 50% larger L3 pool for the i5-9400T, which should benefit multi-threaded workloads that can use the extra capacity.

Memory support is a major architectural split. The i7-5950HQ uses DDR3 with dual-channel memory and a maximum bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. The i5-9400T uses DDR4, also dual-channel, but with a significantly higher bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. This 42.8% bandwidth advantage for the i5-9400T is substantial and likely contributes to its Cinebench wins, as those tests can be memory-bandwidth sensitive.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The i7-5950HQ carries Iris Pro Graphics 6200, while the i5-9400T has UHD 630. Both support PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, and neither supports ECC memory. The i7-5950HQ was released in June 2015 with a launch MSRP of $623; the i5-9400T came later in August 2018 with no launch MSRP listed. Both are end-of-life products, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data does not support a single winner; it supports two winners for two different jobs. If your workload is Geekbench-centric, the i7-5950HQ is the clear choice, with a 15.9% multicore and 17.4% single-core lead. That is a decisive margin for any application that behaves like that benchmark. The i5-9400T cannot close that gap, despite having two more physical cores.

For Cinebench workloads, the i5-9400T is consistently ahead, but only by about 5.5% across all versions of the test. That is a real but modest advantage. If you are rendering or doing CPU-bound creative work that scales like Cinebench, the i5-9400T will finish your tasks faster, but not dramatically so.

The aggregate average benchmark scores suggest these CPUs are peers: 2158 versus 2136, a difference of about 1%. Both sit at the 47th percentile. The i5-9400T wins more individual tests, but the i7-5950HQ wins the tests it does win by a wider margin. For a builder choosing between these two, the decision should come down to the specific benchmark profile of their target applications. There is no "better" chip in the abstract; there is only a better tool for a given task.

The i5-9400T's larger L3 cache (9 MB versus 6 MB) and higher memory bandwidth (42.7 GB/s versus 29.9 GB/s) give it a structural advantage in sustained throughput workloads. The i7-5950HQ's 8 threads versus 6 give it an advantage in highly threaded scenarios that benefit from more logical processors. The i7-5950HQ also has a higher base clock at 2.90 GHz versus the i5-9400T's 1800.00 MHz, but the i5-9400T boosts to 3.40 GHz versus 3.80 GHz for the i7-5950HQ, so the peak single-thread speed favors the i7-5950HQ.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-5950HQ | Intel Core i5-9400T |

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

| Cores | 4 | 6 |

| Threads | 8 | 6 |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 1800.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| TDP | 47W | 35W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1364 | Intel Socket 1151 |

| Architecture | Broadwell | Coffee Lake |

| Codename | Broadwell-H | Coffee Lake |

| Generation | Core i7 (Broadwell-H) | Core i5 (Coffee Lake Refresh) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 9 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 29.9 GB/s | 42.7 GB/s |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Pro Graphics 6200 | UHD 630 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | June 2015 | August 2018 |

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The i5-9400T has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the i7-5950HQ has 4 cores and 8 threads. The i5-9400T has two more physical cores, but the i7-5950HQ has two more logical threads thanks to Hyper-Threading.

Q: How big is the performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The i5-9400T leads in Cinebench R23 multicore with a score of 6896 versus 6516, a 5.5% difference. In single-core, the i5-9400T scores 973 against 920, a 5.4% lead.

Q: Which processor wins in Geekbench, and by how much?

A: The i7-5950HQ wins Geekbench. In the multicore test, it scores 4601 against 3969, which is a 15.9% advantage. The single-core score is 1353 versus 1152, a 17.4% lead.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each?

A: The i7-5950HQ supports DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and 29.9 GB/s bandwidth. The i5-9400T supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 42.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are both CPUs on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both the i7-5950HQ and i5-9400T are built on Intel's 14nm process node. However, the i7-5950HQ has a die size of 182 mm², while the i5-9400T's die size is not listed.

Q: How do their overall average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i7-5950HQ has an average benchmark score of 2158, and the i5-9400T scores 2136. Both are at the 47th percentile of all CPUs, and the difference is roughly 1%.

Where Each One Wins

The i7-5950HQ is the winner in Geekbench workloads, both single-core and multi-core. The 17.4% single-core lead suggests that applications heavily dependent on single-threaded performance with Geekbench-like characteristics will feel noticeably snappier on the i7-5950HQ. The 15.9% multicore win also indicates that some multi-threaded scenarios favor the i7-5950HQ's 8 threads over the i5-9400T's 6 cores. This is likely a case where thread count matters more than physical core count for certain parallel workloads.

The i5-9400T wins everywhere else in the benchmark suite. All six Cinebench tests go its way, with margins between 5.2% and 5.6%. This makes it the better choice for rendering tasks, 3D modeling, and any CPU-intensive creative work that uses Cinebench's rendering engine or similar workloads. The i5-9400T's 9 MB of L3 cache and 42.7 GB/s memory bandwidth give it a structural advantage in these sustained throughput tasks. Its lower 35W TDP also means it draws less power under load, which is a tangible benefit for compact desktop builds, though the i7-5950HQ's 47W TDP is not extreme for a mobile chip.

For system builders, the socket difference is a hard constraint. The i7-5950HQ uses Intel BGA 1364, which is a soldered mobile platform, while the i5-9400T uses Intel Socket 1151 for desktop motherboards. These are not interchangeable. The i7-5950HQ's Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is a more capable integrated GPU than the i5-9400T's UHD 630, which matters if you plan to run without a discrete graphics card. The i5-9400T's DDR4 support and higher memory bandwidth make it the better foundation for a modern system that expects DDR4 memory.

In summary, pick the i7-5950HQ if your primary benchmarks look like Geekbench and you need maximum single-thread performance from a mobile platform. Pick the i5-9400T for Cinebench-style rendering workloads, lower power consumption, and modern DDR4 support on a desktop socket. The data shows these are evenly matched overall, but the distribution of wins is highly benchmark-specific.