Intel Core i5-11400F, 6C/12T, 2.60-4.40GHz, tray

Mit etwas Verspätung ist der kleinste Rocket-Lake-Prozessor in der PCGH-Redaktion eingetroffen. Mit einem Boost von 4,4 GHz auf sechs Kernen mit zwölf Threads und einer Preisempfehlung von unter 200 Euro möchte Intel mit dem Core i5-11400F den Budget-Gaming-Markt erobern. Warum sich die CPU selbst im Weg steht und dennoch ihr Geld wert ist, lesen Sie jetzt in unserem Test.

Bisher haben wir uns mit dem Core i5-11600K, Core i7-11700K und Core i9-11900K die K-Modelle der Rocket-Lake-Generation angeschaut. Der stromhungrige Core i9-11900K verdient sich i9-Einordnung eigentlich nur über den Verbrauch, der Core i7-11700K liegt dicht dahinter und der Core i5-11600K ist unter den drei Modellen schon das eigentliche Highlight. Mit dem Core i5-11400F wollen wir uns heute aber einem möglichen Geheimtip widmen. Neben den Benchmarks auf Z590 haben wir dieses Modell aber auch mit dem besser dazu passenden B560-Mainboard getestet.

Auf die erfolgreichen Modelle Intel Core i5-9400F und 10400F folgt der 11400F mit neuer CPU-Architektur. In Mainboards ohne feste Powerlimits ist der Leistungssprung groß und mit Speicher-OC auf B560 kann er in Spielen noch weiter zulegen. In Summe ist der kleine Core i5 für 160 Euro schlussendlich Intels beste Rakete.

the 11400F is proof that Intel's most competitive CPUs are now its cheaper offerings. The 11400F by and large provides better gaming performance than Ryzen 3000 and most Intel 10th-generation chips, while costing far less than the similarly performant Core i5 11600K and 11900K. AMD's Ryzen 5000 chips and the Core i9 10900K remain the best choices for mixed use - content creation plus gaming - but there are no doubt millions of people for which gaming is the primary focus. For these people, the 11400F represents unparalleled value.

The i5-11400F is a 6 core / 12 thread 65W CPU with a base clock of 2.60GHz and a max turbo frequency of 4.40GHz. Currently available for $174.99 at the time of writing, can it compare to the 6-core 11600K that is, on average, $80 more expensive? Comparing the two and we can see a big difference in base clocks, but when it comes to turbo frequency, there is only a 0.50GHz difference. So, just how big of an impact will this difference have, and will it allow for the 11600K to still be a viable option with its extra $80 price tag? There is only one real way to find out, which is to put the 11400F to the test and see how it stacks up against the other CPUs we have tested.

Not bad, not bad at all eh? Subjectively speaking, this might be the best processor in the RKL range when you factor in the game performance versus price. You can purchase 6-cores for 26 USD per core. Granted the processor (MSRP $157) at reference settings is roughly a quarter slower than the Ryzen 5 5600X (MSRP 299 USD), but also much more affordable. AMD has no real answer in the form of a 5600 non-X to that. The closest thing would be a ZEN2 based 3600/3600X and we will not advise such processors over this one if we solely base the premise on PC gaming and PCIe gen 4.0 compatibility. That said in-between the 5600X the performance differential is roughly 25% on all application fronts with smaller margins in gaming. But for a Windows PC experience that's an overall good performance. For games, you'll notice a drop-down in performance, however with more mainstream graphics cards this really is okay. The one problem that we have with the current 11th gen processors is that the performance differs per motherboard. We test all our processors at reference settings but in this particular case decided to also include a second data set with motherboard optimized processor settings. That last one greatly betters to boost multi-core performance, though at the cost of longer PL2 power duration states and a higher Turbo and base-clock frequencies on more and all cores. However, once enabled you'll get close to 11600K performance on most motherboards, and that is the golden lining that this proc can offer. It's an incredibly simple but golden tweak. So once you select and enable an optimized multi-core BIOS mode at 157 USD you'll grab yourself a very feisty processor for your gaming PC. Rocket Lake-S is a processor series with many dynamics and complications though, gear 1 and 2 settings also show pretty striking differences in power consumption. But is that all relevant to you as a PC Gamer with a 65W TDP processor? See, this generation, the Gear 1 mode, in which the memory controller works with the same clock rate as the main memory. In Gear 2 the memory controller's clock rate is halved at the cost of performance. Gear 1 operates up to DDR4-3733 with the Core i5-11400F, the mode remains the recommendation one. Most people will have either 3200 or 3600 MHz DDR4 memory, the latter one we recommend these days.

The new Core i5-11400F is marginally faster than the 10400F for gaming, but often much faster for productivity tasks with margins as large as 25% in certain tasks. For gamers, the 11400F isn’t exactly a crazy good deal, at around $20 more than the 10400F, it’s an insignificant cost increase and you can pair it with all the same motherboards, so we feel for the upgraded features alone the premium is worth it.

Performance results are a bit complicated though with the 11400F. Rocket Lake introduces a new memory controller, which has the ability to run in two modes: Gear 1—memory controller clock equals memory frequency, or Gear 2—memory controller clock equals half the memory frequency. The consensus so far has been to always run Gear 1, unless you can achieve memory clocks well above DDR4-4500. That's why I did two runs at stock: Gear 1 and Gear 2, to get a feel for how much faster Gear 1 is than Gear 2. Turns out on the Core i5-11400F Gear 1 is not faster than Gear 2. Look through the results, the difference is big enough to not be some random effect. At first I thought this to be an issue with my test setup, configuration, apps or something else. After trying various things to find the root cause, I realized that the CPU's power limit is the reason for the surprising performance difference. All modern Intel CPUs have Turbo Boost 2.0, which lets the CPU exceed its power limit for a few seconds, while there is still power budget left—the goal is to average 65 W, not stay below 65 W at all times. With the memory controller working extra hard in Gear 1, at twice the operating frequency of Gear 2, it consumes A LOT more power: I measured between 5 and 10 W higher, depending on the workload—this is just to operate the memory controller at Gear 1, everything else, memory chips and CPU IA core frequency, and voltages are identical. Obviously these 10 W are part of the processor's power consumption and count towards its limits. On a processor with 65 W TDP, this is a significant cost—the CPU's cores can no longer boost as high, and the boost budget is exhausted sooner.