PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Core i5-12400F

2022

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.3% higher average FPS across 38 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $625 less on MSRP ($174 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Delivers 306.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 112.3 vs 27.6 PassMark/$ ($174 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 140W, a 75W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3r2 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (19,532 vs 22,066).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (18 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1920, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads.

Ryzen Threadripper 1920

2017

Why buy it

✅+13% higher PassMark.
✅+77.8% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 18 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 12 cores / 24 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-12400F across 38 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 27.6 vs 112.3 PassMark/$ ($799 MSRP vs $174 MSRP).
❌115.4% higher power demand at 140W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3r2 with DDR4, while Core i5-12400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-12400F.

Core i5-12400F

2022

Ryzen Threadripper 1920

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.3% higher average FPS across 38 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $625 less on MSRP ($174 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Delivers 306.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 112.3 vs 27.6 PassMark/$ ($174 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 140W, a 75W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3r2 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅+13% higher PassMark.
✅+77.8% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 18 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 12 cores / 24 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (19,532 vs 22,066).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (18 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1920, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-12400F across 38 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 27.6 vs 112.3 PassMark/$ ($799 MSRP vs $174 MSRP).
❌115.4% higher power demand at 140W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3r2 with DDR4, while Core i5-12400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-12400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-12400F better than Ryzen Threadripper 1920?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Ryzen Threadripper 1920 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-12400F is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen Threadripper 1920 is the better fit. You are getting 13% better PassMark, backed by 12 cores and 24 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 77.8% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 18 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core i5-12400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-12400F is $625 cheaper on MSRP at $174 MSRP versus $799 MSRP, and it gives you a 3.3% average FPS lead across 38 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that Ryzen Threadripper 1920 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 13% better PassMark. It is also 306.5% better value on MSRP (112.3 vs 27.6 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core i5-12400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2022 vs 2017) and a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of SP3r2. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core i5-12400F Benchmark Check

Ryzen Threadripper 1920 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-12400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
1080p
low	183 FPS	175 FPS
medium	168 FPS	156 FPS
high	139 FPS	129 FPS
ultra	119 FPS	105 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	143 FPS
medium	132 FPS	121 FPS
high	106 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	89 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	87 FPS	65 FPS
medium	81 FPS	59 FPS
high	64 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	49 FPS	37 FPS

Open Core i5-12400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1920

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-12400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
1080p
low	471 FPS	398 FPS
medium	397 FPS	357 FPS
high	341 FPS	304 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	252 FPS
1440p
low	407 FPS	339 FPS
medium	351 FPS	309 FPS
high	309 FPS	265 FPS
ultra	265 FPS	219 FPS
4K
low	282 FPS	217 FPS
medium	248 FPS	197 FPS
high	229 FPS	179 FPS
ultra	196 FPS	145 FPS

Open Core i5-12400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1920

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-12400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
1080p
low	488 FPS	552 FPS
medium	488 FPS	539 FPS
high	488 FPS	501 FPS
ultra	488 FPS	442 FPS
1440p
low	488 FPS	552 FPS
medium	488 FPS	464 FPS
high	485 FPS	418 FPS
ultra	434 FPS	367 FPS
4K
low	442 FPS	420 FPS
medium	389 FPS	334 FPS
high	337 FPS	303 FPS
ultra	274 FPS	252 FPS

Open Core i5-12400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1920

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-12400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
1080p
low	488 FPS	552 FPS
medium	488 FPS	552 FPS
high	488 FPS	552 FPS
ultra	488 FPS	528 FPS
1440p
low	488 FPS	552 FPS
medium	488 FPS	552 FPS
high	488 FPS	493 FPS
ultra	473 FPS	423 FPS
4K
low	488 FPS	444 FPS
medium	450 FPS	408 FPS
high	391 FPS	367 FPS
ultra	330 FPS	318 FPS

Open Core i5-12400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1920

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-12400F and Ryzen Threadripper 1920

Core i5-12400F

The Core i5-12400F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 18 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 19,532 points. Launch price was $180.

Ryzen Threadripper 1920

The Ryzen Threadripper 1920 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 July 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Zen (2017−2020) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3r2. Thermal design power (TDP): 140 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Quad-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 22,066 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-12400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the Core i5-12400F versus 3.8 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 — a 14.6% clock advantage for the Core i5-12400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Core i5-12400F uses the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 uses Zen (2017−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-12400F scores 19,532 against the Ryzen Threadripper 1920's 22,066 — a 12.2% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper 1920. L3 cache: 18 MB (total) on the Core i5-12400F vs 32 MB on the Ryzen Threadripper 1920.

Feature	Core i5-12400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	12 / 24+100%
Boost Clock	4.4 GHz+16%	3.8 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	3.2 GHz+28%
L3 Cache	18 MB (total)	32 MB+78%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)+150%	512 kB (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Alder Lake-S (2022)	Zen (2017−2020)
PassMark	19,532	22,066+13%
Cinebench R23 Multi	12,380	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,700	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	657	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-12400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 uses SP3r2 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-12400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
Socket	LGA1700	SP3r2
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	—
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	20	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i5-12400F) / not specified (Ryzen Threadripper 1920). Primary use case: Core i5-12400F targets Gaming Performance/Value. Direct competitor: Core i5-12400F rivals Ryzen 5 5600.

Feature	Core i5-12400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1920
Integrated GPU	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, EPT	—
Target Use	Gaming Performance/Value	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-12400F launched at $174 MSRP, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 debuted at $799. On MSRP ($174 vs $799), the Core i5-12400F is $625 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-12400F delivers 112.3 pts/$ vs 27.6 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper 1920 — making the Core i5-12400F the 121% better value option.