SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen 5 8400F + AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT

Get a comprehensive performance analysis of your gaming rig with detailed benchmarks, bottleneck detection, and upgrade recommendations

Build Configuration

Select your components

PROCESSOR (CPU)

▼

GRAPHICS CARD (GPU)

▼

92 Score

Top 8% Ranking

92 / 100

ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 8% of systems. Capable of 4K Ultra gaming and advanced rendering.

4K 60+ FPSVR ReadyRay Tracing

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio

Well Balanced

CPU

86%

GPU

97%

PROCESSOR

AMD Ryzen 5 8400F

25,005 Benchmark Score

Top 14% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT

58,392 Benchmark Score

Top 3% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

Market Position

How your build compares to others

Budget

0-30

Mid-Range

30-60

High-End

60-85

Enthusiast

85-100

Your Build

Game Performance Benchmarks

Real-world 4K FPS in popular titles

View All Games →

Performance Insights

Tips to maximize your system

Optimal Performance

Your system is in the top tier. You can run any modern game at maximum settings.

4K Gaming Ready

Consider a 4K 144Hz monitor to fully utilize your hardware capabilities.

Compatible Games See what you can play Compare CPUs Find upgrades Compare GPUs Find upgrades

Performance Tiers Explained

90-100

Ultimate

4K Ultra gaming, VR ready, ray tracing enabled, professional workloads

4K 60+ FPS VR Ready

70-89

High-End

1440p Ultra or 4K High settings, excellent for modern AAA titles

1440p Ultra 4K High

50-69

Mid-Range

1080p Ultra or 1440p Medium, great value for most gamers

1080p Ultra 1440p Med

30-49

Entry Level

1080p Medium settings, suitable for eSports and older titles

1080p Med eSports

0-29

Legacy

Basic gaming, older titles, consider upgrading for modern games

720p-1080p Low Older Games

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT form a desktop pairing that sits at the 83rd combined percentile among all CPU-GPU combinations in the benchmark database. The CPU is a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 4 part built on TSMC’s 4 nm process, while the GPU is a 16 GB RDNA 2.0 flagship from the RX 6000 series on a 7 nm node. Since the FACT PACK contains no measured FPS rows for this exact combination, all gaming figures discussed here are estimates derived from the benchmark scores of each component, not direct measurements.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS data exists for this CPU-GPU combination. The FACT PACK’s `measuredFpsUltraByGame` field is empty, and `dataIsMeasured` is false. Consequently, every frame rate mentioned in this section is an estimate based on the benchmark scores of the Ryzen 5 8400F and the RX 6950 XT, rather than a verified result from a game-specific test.

The GPU’s raw performance scores suggest it can deliver high frame rates at 1440p and 4K in most titles. The RX 6950 XT scores 28070 in Passmark G3D and 4235 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it at the 88th percentile among all GPUs. For context, the GPU’s average benchmark score is 58392, which is within 0.5% of rivals like the AMD Radeon PRO V710 (58657, deltaPct -0.5) and the NVIDIA P102-100 (58528, deltaPct -0.2). These scores indicate the card is positioned for high-refresh 1440p gaming and capable 4K performance, though the exact FPS will vary by title.

The CPU side matters for frame pacing and minimum FPS. The Ryzen 5 8400F scores 951 in 3DMark single-thread and 6165 in 3DMark max threads, with a Passmark single-thread score of 3685. These numbers place the CPU at the 77th percentile among all CPUs, meaning it can keep up with the GPU in most gaming scenarios, but it may become a limiting factor in very high-FPS esports titles where frame rates exceed 200 FPS. For a typical AAA game at 1440p ultra settings, the estimated FPS would likely range from 90 to 140, depending on the title’s optimization and CPU load.

At 1080p, the bottleneck shifts more toward the CPU. With a Passmark multithread score of 24389 and a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20851, the 8400F is adequate for most games, but its 6 cores and 12 threads may struggle in titles that heavily utilize more than 8 threads. Estimated 1080p FPS could reach 140 to 180 in less demanding games, while more CPU-intensive titles might see dips below 120 FPS. At 4K, the GPU becomes the dominant factor, and the estimated FPS would be 50 to 80 in demanding titles, given the RX 6950 XT’s 16 GB VRAM and 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth.

GPU Analysis

The AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT is built on the Navi 21 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC’s 7 nm process. It contains 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, with a transistor density of 51.5 million per mm². The GPU has 5120 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 128 render output units. It includes 80 ray tracing cores, supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Memory configuration is a key strength. The card has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with a memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) and a total bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. This memory capacity is substantial for 4K textures and modern game assets, and the bandwidth supports high-resolution rendering without stutter. The GPU’s pixel rate is 295.7 GPixel/s and texture rate is 739.2 GTexel/s, indicating strong fill-rate capabilities for high-resolution output.

Clock speeds are relatively high for the architecture. The base clock is 1860 MHz, the game clock is 2100 MHz, and the boost clock reaches 2310 MHz. These clocks, combined with the 5120 shading units, yield an FP32 performance of 23.65 TFLOPS and FP16 performance of 47.31 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The GPU’s Passmark compute score is 14199, and its Geekbench OpenCL score is 205998, indicating solid compute throughput for rendering tasks.

The 88th percentile ranking among all GPUs places it above the majority of discrete graphics cards. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA P102-100 (avg score 58528, deltaPct -0.2) and the Intel Arc A570M (avg score 58239, deltaPct 0.3), but the RX 6950 XT’s average benchmark score of 58392 is slightly higher than both in this dataset. The GPU’s 80 RT cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing, though the RDNA 2.0 architecture is generally less efficient at RT workloads compared to newer designs. For rasterized rendering, the data indicates the RX 6950 XT is a high-end performer, well-suited for 1440p and 4K gaming.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: The RX 6950 XT’s Passmark G3D score of 28070 and 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 4235 indicate strong rasterization performance, capable of driving high refresh rates at 1440p. The Ryzen 5 8400F’s single-thread score of 951 in 3DMark and 3685 in Passmark single-thread suggests it can handle frame generation in most titles, but for 240 Hz displays, the CPU might become a constraint in CPU-bound games. Estimated FPS at 1440p ultra would be 100-150 in most AAA titles.

Streaming: The CPU’s 12 threads and Passmark data compression score of 288158 support software encoding, while the GPU’s 16 GB VRAM allows for game capture without memory pressure. However, the RX 6950 XT has no dedicated tensor cores or NVENC equivalent mentioned in the FACT PACK, so streaming may rely on CPU encoding (x264), which would reduce available CPU resources. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20851 suggests acceptable encoding performance, but concurrent gaming and encoding could cause frame dips.

Video editing: The 8400F’s Passmark integer math score of 74021 and floating point math score of 46217 indicate decent compute for video filters and effects. The GPU’s 23.65 TFLOPS FP32 performance accelerates GPU-accelerated effects in editors like Premiere Pro or DaVinci Resolve. The 16 GB VRAM is sufficient for 4K timelines with multiple layers. Cinebench R20 multicore score of 8757 suggests the CPU can handle 4K export times, though not as fast as higher-core-count parts.

3D rendering: The GPU’s OpenCL score of 205998 and Vulkan score of 165212 show strong compute for render engines like Blender Cycles (GPU mode) or V-Ray. The 16 GB VRAM allows for larger scenes without out-of-core spills. The CPU’s Passmark multithread score of 24389 is adequate for CPU-based rendering, but render times will be longer than with 16-core or 24-core processors. For a workstation with mixed GPU and CPU rendering, this pairing is mid-to-high tier.

Software development: The CPU’s Passmark data encryption score of 16646 and extended instructions score of 22175 indicate solid performance for compilation and cryptographic workloads. The 6 cores and 12 threads handle parallel builds reasonably, with a Cinebench R15 multicore score of 2101. The GPU is not critical for most development tasks, but its compute can accelerate machine learning inference or shader compilation. The 77th CPU percentile means it outperforms roughly a quarter of all CPUs in general tasks.

Student and office work: For document editing, web browsing, and spreadsheet tasks, the CPU’s Passmark single-thread score of 3685 provides responsive performance. The GPU is vastly overkill for office workloads, but the 16 GB VRAM and high compute scores could be repurposed for data visualization or light scientific computing. The 65 W CPU TDP and 335 W GPU TDP mean the system will draw significant power under load, which is a consideration for dorm rooms or small offices with power limits.

Balance and Bottleneck

The combined percentile of 83 indicates a well-matched pairing, but the data reveals workload-dependent bottlenecks. In CPU-light games, the RX 6950 XT’s 88th GPU percentile will dominate, and the 8400F’s 77th CPU percentile will not constrain frame rates. In CPU-heavy titles, the scenario reverses: the GPU may wait for the CPU to feed it draw calls. The CPU’s 3DMark 8-thread score of 5275 versus max-thread score of 6165 shows only modest scaling beyond 8 threads, suggesting that games utilizing more than 8 threads will see limited benefit from the full 12 threads.

The FPS scaling between resolutions is a clear indicator of bottleneck dynamics. At 1080p, the CPU is more likely to be the limiting factor, as the GPU’s high fill rate (295.7 GPixel/s) can easily outpace the CPU’s frame generation. At 4K, the GPU becomes the bottleneck, and the CPU’s lower utilization means it has headroom. The estimated FPS drop from 1080p to 4K would be substantial, possibly 50-60% in demanding titles, which aligns with the GPU’s 576.0 GB/s bandwidth being the primary constraint at higher resolutions.

The CPU’s benchmark scores show it is closer to its rivals than the GPU is to its rivals. The 8400F’s average benchmark score of 25005 is only 0.2% above the Ryzen 5 7500F (24964, deltaPct 0.2) and 0.3% above the Intel Core i7-11850H (24935, deltaPct 0.3). This tight clustering means the CPU is not a standout performer in its class. In contrast, the GPU’s average score of 58392 is 0.3% above the Intel Arc A570M (58239, deltaPct 0.3) and 0.5% above the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM (58085, deltaPct 0.5), but it also trails the AMD Radeon PRO V710 by 0.5% (58657, deltaPct -0.5). The GPU’s percentile (88) is 11 points higher than the CPU’s (77), indicating the GPU is the stronger component in relative terms.

For balanced workloads like gaming at 1440p, the CPU and GPU are reasonably matched, with the GPU having slightly more headroom. For productivity tasks that scale with cores, the CPU’s 6-core design will bottleneck multi-threaded workloads, as shown by the Passmark multithread score of 24389, which is below many 8-core or 16-core competitors.

CPU Analysis

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Phoenix. It is manufactured on TSMC’s 4 nm process, with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The base clock is 4.20 GHz and the boost clock reaches 4.70 GHz. The CPU has a 65 W TDP and supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. It uses AMD Socket AM5 and provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only). It has no integrated graphics and does not support ECC memory. The multiplier is unlocked, allowing overclocking.

Cache hierarchy consists of 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. This configuration is modest for a Zen 4 part, with the L3 being shared across all 6 cores. Benchmark scores show strong single-thread performance: 951 in 3DMark single-thread, 296 in Cinebench R15 single-core, 1236 in Cinebench R20 single-core, and 2943 in Cinebench R23 single-core. The Passmark single-thread score is 3685, which is identical to the Passmark singlethread score.

Multi-threaded performance scales decently with the 12 threads. The Cinebench R23 multicore score is 20851, and the R20 multicore score is 8757. The 3DMark 16-thread score is 6091, and the max threads score is 6165, indicating that adding more threads beyond 16 yields minimal gains. The Passmark multithread score is 24389, with a physics score of 1332. Data compression achieves 288158 in Passmark, while data encryption scores 16646.

The 77th percentile among all CPUs means it outperforms 77% of the processors in the database. Its nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F, with an average score of 24964 and a deltaPct of 0.2, meaning the 8400F is 0.2% ahead. The Intel Core i7-11850H (24935, deltaPct 0.3) and Intel Core i7-13620H (24911, deltaPct 0.4) are slightly behind, while the AMD EPYC 9474F (25103, deltaPct -0.4) is slightly ahead. This places the 8400F in the upper mid-range tier of desktop CPUs.

For real workloads, the CPU’s single-thread performance is sufficient for everyday tasks and gaming. The multi-thread scores are adequate for light content creation but will lag behind higher-core-count parts in rendering or video encoding. The 4.70 GHz boost clock helps with latency-sensitive workloads, and the 83.2 GB/s memory bandwidth is ample for a 6-core part.

Who Should Build It

This pairing targets gamers who play at 1440p or 4K with high settings, as the RX 6950 XT’s 16 GB VRAM and 88th GPU percentile support high-resolution textures and effects. The estimated FPS at 1440p ultra would satisfy most gamers seeking 100+ FPS in AAA titles, while 4K gaming is viable at 50-80 FPS in demanding games. Esports players at 1080p might find the CPU limiting for 240 Hz displays, but for 144 Hz monitors, the pairing is adequate.

Content creators who work with GPU-accelerated effects will benefit from the GPU’s 23.65 TFLOPS and 16 GB VRAM. Video editors using DaVinci Resolve or Premiere Pro can leverage the GPU for timeline rendering, while the CPU’s 12 threads handle encoding. 3D artists using Blender or similar tools will find the OpenCL score of 205998 useful for viewport rendering, though CPU-based renders will be slower than with higher-core CPUs.

Software developers compiling large codebases will appreciate the CPU’s Passmark integer math score of 74021 and extended instructions score of 22175. The 6 cores provide reasonable parallelism for build tools, and the 65 W TDP keeps power costs low during long compilation sessions. Students and office workers will find the system overpowered, but the CPU’s single-thread responsiveness makes it snappy for daily tasks. Small business workstations handling data analysis or light CAD will benefit from the GPU’s compute, though the lack of ECC memory could be a concern for critical data integrity.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU’s average benchmark score is 25005, placing it at the 77th percentile among all CPUs. Its strongest scores include 20851 in Cinebench R23 multicore, 8757 in R20 multicore, and 2101 in R15 multicore. Single-thread performance is solid with 2943 in R23 single-core and 1236 in R20 single-core. Passmark scores show 24389 multithread, 3685 single-thread, 74021 integer math, and 46217 floating point math.

The GPU’s average benchmark score is 58392, placing it at the 88th percentile among all GPUs. Its Passmark G3D score is 28070, with a G2D score of 1063. DirectX tests show 300 for DX11, 114 for DX12, and 164 for DX10. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 4235. Geekbench scores are 222653 for Metal, 205998 for OpenCL, and 165212 for Vulkan.

The combined percentile of 83 indicates that this pairing outperforms 83% of all CPU-GPU combos in the database. The CPU’s percentile (77) is lower than the GPU’s (88), meaning the GPU is a stronger component relative to its peers. The pair rank by FPS is null, as no measured FPS data exists. The overall picture is a high-end GPU paired with a mid-range CPU, resulting in a system that excels in GPU-bound workloads but is limited in CPU-bound tasks.

FAQ

Q: What is the combined percentile of this CPU-GPU pairing?

A: The combined percentile is 83, meaning it outperforms 83% of all CPU-GPU combinations in the database.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 8400F support ECC memory?

A: No, the FACT PACK lists `eccMemory` as false, so ECC memory is not supported.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the RX 6950 XT?

A: The GPU has a memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s, based on 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with an effective speed of 18 Gbps.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 8400F compare to the Ryzen 5 7500F in average benchmark score?

A: The 8400F has an average score of 25005, which is 0.2% higher than the Ryzen 5 7500F’s average score of 24964 (deltaPct 0.2).

Q: What is the TDP of the RX 6950 XT, and what PSU is suggested?

A: The GPU has a TDP of 335 W, and the suggested PSU is 700 W.

Q: Does the RX 6950 XT have ray tracing hardware?

A: Yes, it has 80 ray tracing cores, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes ray tracing features.

Q: What is the CPU’s boost clock and process node?

A: The boost clock is 4.70 GHz, and the process node is 4 nm (TSMC).

Build Overview

This is a desktop build pairing the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F CPU with the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT GPU. The CPU is a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 4 part with a 65 W TDP, while the GPU is a 335 W RDNA 2.0 card with 16 GB of VRAM. The combined percentile is 83, placing this system in the upper tier of desktop configurations. The CPU’s 77th percentile and GPU’s 88th percentile indicate a GPU-heavy balance, where the graphics card is the dominant component.

The build class is desktop, and the production status is active for the CPU and end-of-life for the GPU. The CPU was released in 2024, while the GPU was released in 2022. The launch MSRP for the CPU is $170, and the launch MSRP for the GPU is 1,099 USD. The GPU is a triple-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, 120 mm in height, and 50 mm in width, requiring 2x 8-pin power connectors.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The CPU uses AMD Socket AM5, which supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The CPU provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, and the GPU uses PCIe 4.0 x16, which is fully compatible. The memory bus is dual-channel with a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The CPU’s TDP is 65 W, and the GPU’s TDP is 335 W, with a suggested PSU of 700 W, leaving headroom for modest upgrades.

A sensible next upgrade for this system would be a higher-core-count CPU on the same AM5 socket, provided the motherboard supports it. The 8400F’s nearest rival, the Ryzen 5 7500F, is only 0.2% faster, so upgrading to a similar-tier CPU would yield negligible gains. Moving to an 8-core or 12-core Zen 4 part would improve multi-threaded workloads, as the current CPU’s Passmark multithread score of 24389 is below many 8-core parts. For the GPU, the RX 6950 XT is end-of-life, so an upgrade would require a newer architecture, but the PCIe 4.0 x16 interface ensures compatibility with current and future GPUs.

The 16 GB VRAM on the GPU is sufficient for 4K gaming today, but future titles with higher VRAM requirements might benefit from more memory. The 700 W suggested PSU provides enough headroom for the current components, but a higher-wattage PSU would be needed for a more power-hungry GPU upgrade. The CPU’s 65 W TDP means the power delivery system is not stressed, allowing for potential CPU overclocking since the multiplier is unlocked. Overall, the AM5 platform offers a clear upgrade path to higher-core CPUs, while the GPU slot can accommodate a newer card when needed.

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen 5 8400F + AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

AMD Ryzen 5 8400F

AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT

Market Position

Game Performance Benchmarks

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

Performance Insights

Optimal Performance

4K Gaming Ready

Performance Tiers Explained

Ultimate

High-End

Mid-Range

Entry Level

Legacy

Gaming Performance

GPU Analysis

Usage Scenarios

Balance and Bottleneck

CPU Analysis

Who Should Build It

Benchmark Performance

FAQ

Build Overview

Upgrade Path and Platform

4K Gaming Performance

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

1440p Gaming Performance

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

1080p Gaming Performance

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

Related Processors

Related Graphics Cards

Compare Your CPU

Compare Your GPU

Related PC Builds

Same CPU with Different GPUs

Same GPU with Different CPUs

Other Popular Builds