什么是最好的选择 Intel Core i5-12450H 或 Intel Core i5-13400F? 哪种处理器更快?
Compare the available specifications of these models.
Intel Core i5-12450H has a base frequency of 2.00 GHz. 8 / 12 CPU Cores / Threads. Stated TDP / base power 45 W. 发布于 Q1/2022.
Intel Core i5-13400F has a base frequency of 2.50 GHz (4.60 GHz). 10 / 16 CPU Cores / Threads. Stated TDP / base power 65 W. 发布于 Q1/2023.
需要考虑的原因 Lower stated TDP / base power
Power limits alone do not measure performance per watt.
共同立场 Intel Core i5-12450H 在流行的基准测试中的CPU,用于与其他型号进行比较.
需要考虑的原因 在总排名中的位置
(基于几个基准)
更多的核心数量
2 more cores
共同立场 Intel Core i5-13400F 在流行的基准测试中的CPU,用于与其他型号进行比较.
Intel Core i5-12450H
有关被比较的处理器、系列、代数和细分市场的背景信息。
Core counts, threads, cache and clock modes describe the CPU configuration. Performance depends on the workload and comparable measured results.
内部图形不影响CPU的性能,在没有显卡或在移动设备上执行显卡的工作。
用于编码和解码内容的内置编解码器。大大地加快了所需的操作。
支持的RAM的类型、通道数量 Intel Core i5-13400F 和 Intel Core i5-12450H. 根据主板的不同,可能支持更高或更低的内存频率。
比较TDP的要求 Intel Core i5-12450H 和 Intel Core i5-13400F Power specifications describe different manufacturer limits. TDP, base power and maximum turbo power are separate values; they do not establish measured system consumption.
架构、接口、所支持的额外指令 Intel Core i5-12450H 和 Intel Core i5-13400F, 虚拟机技术和工艺技术。
Shared tests with results for both models: 8
Each row uses one Blender version, operating system and compute backend.
| Test and settings | Intel Core i5-12450H | Intel Core i5-13400F | Result difference¹ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender 5.2.0 / CPU / Windows | 112.496374 samples/min Submissions: 6 | 196.492103 samples/min Submissions: 6 | +74.7 % |
| Blender 5.1.1 / CPU / Windows | 134.270491 samples/min Submissions: 5 | 199.355566 samples/min Submissions: 8 | +48.5 % |
| Blender 4.5.0 / CPU / Windows | 110.70322 samples/min Submissions: 34 | 200.318835 samples/min Submissions: 71 | +81.0 % |
| Blender 4.4.0 / CPU / Windows | 102.588353 samples/min Submissions: 21 | 194.431037 samples/min Submissions: 18 | +89.5 % |
| Blender 4.3.0 / CPU / Windows | 103.626894 samples/min Submissions: 35 | 185.751865 samples/min Submissions: 23 | +79.3 % |
| Blender 4.2.0 / CPU / Windows | 108.222767 samples/min Submissions: 59 | 180.143499 samples/min Submissions: 33 | +66.5 % |
| Blender 4.1.0 / CPU / Windows | 106.644675 samples/min Submissions: 45 | 198.561504 samples/min Submissions: 24 | +86.2 % |
| Blender 4.0.0 / CPU / Windows | 113.188249 samples/min Submissions: 49 | 191.443574 samples/min Submissions: 42 | +69.1 % |
¹ Difference of the second result relative to the first in that row. No percentage is calculated for different upscaling algorithms. This compares published results, not a universal performance index.
These results have no shared test of both models with the same version and settings. They are shown separately without a percentage difference.
Results were obtained on the reported systems. Test versions and settings remain separate; incomplete conditions do not support calculated model performance differences.
| Model | Result | Reported conditions |
|---|---|---|
| Intel Core i5-13400F | 5494.082873 H/s | RandomX / XMRig 6.26.0 / 1M / 14 threads / windows System RAM: 32 GB OS: Windows NT 10.0 Motherboard: Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. / B760M GAMING PLUS WIFI DDR4 (MS-7D99) Duration: 182.014 s User-submitted run; tuning and power settings are incomplete. |
| Model | Result | Reported conditions |
|---|---|---|
| Intel Core i5-12450H | 3526.453692 H/s | RandomX / XMRig 6.25.0 / 1M / 9 threads / linux System RAM: 16 GB OS: Linux x86_64 Duration: 283.571 s User-submitted run; tuning and power settings are incomplete. |