Key Differences
In short — Core i5-9400F outperforms the cheaper FX-8120 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing FX-8120 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i5-9400F is 2645 days newer than the cheaper FX-8120.
Advantages of Intel Core i5-9400F
- Performs up to 14% better in Ready or Not than FX-8120 - 266 vs 233 FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than AMD FX-8120 - 65 vs 125 Watts
Advantages of AMD FX-8120
- Up to 30% cheaper than Core i5-9400F - $78.02 vs $112.0
- Up to 21% better value when playing Ready or Not than Core i5-9400F - $0.33 vs $0.42 per FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i5-9400F - 8 vs 6 threads
Ready or Not
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Desktop • Jan 8th, 2019
FPS
266
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.42/FPS
78.57142857142858%
Price, $
$112
69%
FPS Winner
Buy for $112 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 361190 minutes ago
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
FPS
233
87.59398496240601%
Value, $/FPS
$0.33/FPS
100%
Price, $
$78.02
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $78.02 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 361189 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Desktop • Jan 8th, 2019
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i5-9400F | vs | AMD FX-8120 |
---|---|---|
Jan 8th, 2019 | Release Date | Oct 12th, 2011 |
Core i5 | Collection | FX |
Coffee Lake | Codename | Zambezi |
Intel Socket 1151 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 8 |
6 | Threads | 8 |
2.9 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.1 GHz |
4.1 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.4 GHz |
65 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
29.0x | Multiplier | 15.5x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |