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 i5-11400F

2021

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $392 less on MSRP ($157 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
✅Delivers 251.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 107.7 vs 30.7 PassMark/$ ($157 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 1900X across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1900X, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.

Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +33.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (16,829 vs 16,902).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 30.7 vs 107.7 PassMark/$ ($549 MSRP vs $157 MSRP).
❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-11400F.

Core i5-11400F

2021

Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

2017

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $392 less on MSRP ($157 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
✅Delivers 251.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 107.7 vs 30.7 PassMark/$ ($157 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +33.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 1900X across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1900X, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (16,829 vs 16,902).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 30.7 vs 107.7 PassMark/$ ($549 MSRP vs $157 MSRP).
❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-11400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-11400F better than Ryzen Threadripper 1900X?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Ryzen Threadripper 1900X makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-11400F 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, Core i5-11400F is the better fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads.

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

Core i5-11400F is the smarter buy today. Core i5-11400F is $392 cheaper on MSRP at $157 MSRP versus $549 MSRP, and it gives you 0.4% better PassMark. The trade-off is that Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 33.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 251.2% better value on MSRP (107.7 vs 30.7 PassMark/$), 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 i5-11400F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2021 vs 2017), more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 12 threads instead of 8/16, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

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 i5-11400F Benchmark Check

Ryzen Threadripper 1900X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-11400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
1080p
low	167 FPS	227 FPS
medium	145 FPS	198 FPS
high	117 FPS	163 FPS
ultra	99 FPS	118 FPS
1440p
low	141 FPS	183 FPS
medium	121 FPS	152 FPS
high	97 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	82 FPS	87 FPS
4K
low	79 FPS	71 FPS
medium	73 FPS	63 FPS
high	57 FPS	49 FPS
ultra	45 FPS	39 FPS

Open Core i5-11400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-11400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
1080p
low	279 FPS	421 FPS
medium	237 FPS	401 FPS
high	222 FPS	341 FPS
ultra	198 FPS	280 FPS
1440p
low	253 FPS	392 FPS
medium	213 FPS	353 FPS
high	202 FPS	301 FPS
ultra	179 FPS	245 FPS
4K
low	215 FPS	253 FPS
medium	183 FPS	228 FPS
high	169 FPS	206 FPS
ultra	138 FPS	165 FPS

Open Core i5-11400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-11400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
1080p
low	423 FPS	421 FPS
medium	421 FPS	421 FPS
high	383 FPS	421 FPS
ultra	342 FPS	421 FPS
1440p
low	423 FPS	421 FPS
medium	385 FPS	421 FPS
high	345 FPS	421 FPS
ultra	308 FPS	399 FPS
4K
low	337 FPS	421 FPS
medium	290 FPS	362 FPS
high	251 FPS	324 FPS
ultra	202 FPS	270 FPS

Open Core i5-11400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-11400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
1080p
low	423 FPS	421 FPS
medium	423 FPS	421 FPS
high	423 FPS	421 FPS
ultra	423 FPS	421 FPS
1440p
low	423 FPS	421 FPS
medium	423 FPS	421 FPS
high	423 FPS	421 FPS
ultra	423 FPS	421 FPS
4K
low	423 FPS	421 FPS
medium	423 FPS	421 FPS
high	411 FPS	421 FPS
ultra	358 FPS	371 FPS

Open Core i5-11400F Open Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-11400F and Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

Core i5-11400F

The Core i5-11400F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 16 March 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Rocket Lake (2021) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1200. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 16,902 points. Launch price was $157.

Ryzen Threadripper 1900X

The Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 31 August 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Zen (2017−2020) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.8 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3r2. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Quad-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 16,829 points. Launch price was $549.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-11400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the Core i5-11400F versus 4 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X — a 9.5% clock advantage for the Core i5-11400F (base: 2.6 GHz vs 3.8 GHz). The Core i5-11400F uses the Rocket Lake (2021) architecture (14 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X uses Zen (2017−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-11400F scores 16,902 against the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X's 16,829 — a 0.4% lead for the Core i5-11400F. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i5-11400F vs 32 MB on the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X.

Feature	Core i5-11400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 16+33%
Boost Clock	4.4 GHz+10%	4 GHz
Base Clock	2.6 GHz	3.8 GHz+46%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	32 MB+167%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512K (per core)+100%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Rocket Lake (2021)	Zen (2017−2020)
PassMark	16,902	16,829
Geekbench 6 Single	2,000	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	7,600	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-11400F uses the LGA1200 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X uses SP3r2 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-11400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
Socket	LGA1200	SP3r2
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-3200	—
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	20	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i5-11400F) / not specified (Ryzen Threadripper 1900X). Primary use case: Core i5-11400F targets Mainstream Desktop.

Feature	Core i5-11400F	Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
Integrated GPU	No	—
IGPU Model	None	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	Yes	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	—
Target Use	Mainstream Desktop	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-11400F launched at $157 MSRP, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X debuted at $549. On MSRP ($157 vs $549), the Core i5-11400F is $392 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-11400F delivers 107.7 pts/$ vs 30.7 pts/$ for the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X — making the Core i5-11400F the 111.3% better value option.