Intel Core i5-8400 Review: Six Cores On A Budget

Reviews
By ,
last updated

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Civilization VI, Battlefield 1 & Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

The Civilization VI AI test tends to favor a mixture of physical cores, clock rate, and IPC throughput.

Core i5-8400 essentially ties the Kaby Lake-based -7600K and easily rocks the Core i5-7400. AMD's Ryzen processors trail due to their lower frequencies.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

Image 1 of 6

AMD's unlocked ratio multipliers bring great value to the desktop. The 4C/8T Ryzen 5 1500X trails the -8400 by quite a ways in stock form. However, overclocking makes it competitive. The 6C/12T Ryzen 5 1600X fares much better out of the box, and then jumps into a commanding lead after some tuning.

This workload again demonstrates the -8400's generational improvement over Kaby Lake-based chips with fewer cores at lower clock rates.

Battlefield 1 (DX11)

Image 1 of 6

Both the Core i5-8600K and -8400 appear graphics-bound in our 1920x1080 benchmark. There's more of a delta between the other contenders, though.

Core i5-8400 offers 17% more performance than the -7400. That's a significant outcome, given the two chips' similar price points.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Image 1 of 6

The Warhammer 40,000: DoW III benchmark scales well with increased execution resources, but aggressive clock rates also provide a big benefit.

Strangely, Core i5-8400 beats the more expensive Core i5-8600K. This outcome doesn't make much sense, given the specifications in front of us. Clock rates and dissimilar TDPs are the only differences between them, and Core i5-8600K has the advantage in both.


MORE: Best CPUs


MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy


MORE: All CPUs Content

See more CPUs Reviews
Paul Alcorn
Paul Alcorn
Managing Editor: News and Emerging Tech

Paul Alcorn is the Managing Editor: News and Emerging Tech for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

29 Comments Comment from the forums
  • velocityg4
    I'd be interested in knowing. Under what circumstances can you get it to hit 3.8Ghz reliably under a 6-core load? That is quite a spread.

    If one was to delid the CPU and use a decent CPU cooler. Would it reliably maintain the max turbo boost when the CPU usage demands it? Is the stock heatsink and decent case cooling plenty?

    On another note. It is time for the return of the Turbo button. That would be pretty sweet to click the button and manually have the CPU jump between 1, 2, 4 and 6 cores at their respective boost frequencies or down to standard. I know it isn't necessary as it is all automated and that wasn't the purpose of the Turbo button. Some people just like manual control. Plus old time computer geeks would get a kick out of it.
    Reply
  • AgentLozen
    This is a very neat chip at it's price point. Very little has changed between Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake except for the core count. Luckily for Intel, those added cores make all the difference.

    This CPU would sit nicely on a budget system. It's a shame that there are no inexpensive motherboards that it could fit into like the conclusion of this article states.

    If you didn't plan to overclock, this is the best CPU on the market for gaming and general productivity.
    Reply
  • The_King
    We have AMD to thank for all these budget cpu's from Intel, and you all know why! So thank you AMD.
    Reply
  • rwinches
    No, you can't have charts based on FPS or seconds or related to MSRP. Drivers update, Prices change, Memory Speeds Increase and price lowers, MB prices are wide range.

    It is known that Some games work better for AMD when AMD GPUs are used. Game FPS can be dramatically improved by changing just one parameter. Test results that are milliseconds or a few seconds or frames faster are irrelevant and subject to variations in real world use on systems that are not clean installs and have other SW installed and running.
    Reply
  • 10tacle
    20307991 said:
    No, you can't have charts based on FPS or seconds or related to MSRP. Drivers update, Prices change, Memory Speeds Increase and price lowers, MB prices are wide range.

    I don't understand your point. This is a review of the 8400 and comparing it to other CPUs only. Memory, motherboards, and all the other variables are you talking about in a full PC build are irrelevant to this chart comparison. They have to establish a constant standard across the spectrum, and they did so.

    20307991 said:
    It is known that Some games work better for AMD when AMD GPUs are used. Game FPS can be dramatically improved by changing just one parameter. Test results that are milliseconds or a few seconds or frames faster are irrelevant and subject to variations in real world use on systems that are not clean installs and have other SW installed and running.

    Again, they are using a single standard across the spectrum comparison. Of course there are infinite combinations of hardware that can game change a little. The bottom line here is that among every major tech review website, all of Intel's chips are better for gaming than Ryzen. The only exception is when dealing with beyond 1080p gaming like QHD or UHD where it's mostly on the GPU. People who buy this chip are the perfect candidate for a 144Hz 1080p G-sync or Freesync monitor.
    Reply
  • lotusmotors
    Glad I didn't waste money on a 1600x.
    Reply
  • elbert
    Compared to the Ryzen 1600 with a B350 its $50 higher. That is a higher video card level. IE get the 8400 with a 1050ti the Ryzen budget would get a 1060 3GB. Intel needs their B360 motherboards for the 8100 and 8400 to ever be a budget winner.
    Reply
  • hardwarefox1234
    Has the author even bothered to look at the street prices for the CPUs??

    Core i5 8400:

    https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA7HN6HF3442&cm_re=i5_8400-_-9SIA7HN6HF3442-_-Product
    http://www.microcenter.com/product/486090/core_i5-8400_coffee_lake_28_ghz_lga_1151_boxed_processor
    http://www.ncixus.com/products/?sku=142465&vpn=BX80684I58400&manufacture=Intel

    The lowest price is $249.99!

    The Ryzen 5 1600 is much cheaper:

    https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113435&cm_re=ryzen_5_1600-_-19-113-435-_-Product
    http://www.microcenter.com/product/478826/Ryzen_5_1600_32GHz_6_Core_AM4_Boxed_Processor_with_Wraith_Spire_Cooler
    http://www.ncixus.com/products/?sku=139481&vpn=YD1600BBAEBOX&manufacture=AMD
    https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Processor-Wraith-Cooler-YD1600BBAEBOX/dp/B06XNRQHG4/ref=sr_1_3?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1508952175&sr=1-3&keywords=ryzen+5+1600

    Price is $199.99~$219.99!

    Then if you add the price of the B350 motherboards,they start at a lower level than the Z370 ones.
    Reply
  • hixbot
    Why did you label section 10, overclocking, cooling and temperature? There's no overlocking on this chip? I would have like to see at least an attempt at Bclk overlcock with a mobo that has a clock generator.
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    I really wish more reviewers would look at what sort of boost clocks the i5 8400 can sustain under load, with the stock cooler as well as aftermarket. From what I know you could typically assume past Intel CPUs would operate at or near max turbo almost indefinitely, but with a 50% increase in core count and such an unusually wide gap between base and boost clocks (not unlike their mobile CPUs), I'm curious how Coffee Lake will behave in that regard.
    Reply