It runs better because it uses a higher clock speed and newer technology, making it quicker than the older one.
It runs better because it uses a higher clock speed and newer technology, making it quicker than the older one.
I compared two CPUs using Cinebench 2024. 1) Intel i5 12400f at 3.7 GHz across all six cores in 52°C – Multi Core: 620, Single Core: 88. 2) Ryzen 5 5500 at 4.4 GHz on all cores steady at 79°C – Multi Core: 607, Single Core: 86. What explains these results? Below are the key differences: 1) The first model includes an RTX 3060, the second a RX 580. 2) It has 4x8Gb 3333MHz RAM versus the latter’s 2x8Gb 3600MHz. 3) The first system uses all SSDs (NVMe + SATA), while the second has one NVMe, one SATA SSD, and two 7200RPM HDDs. Both had RGB disabled, and both ran on 650W 80+ gold power supplies. Updated March 4, 2025 by artemiskiss... Added more info
It has a larger L1, L2, and L3 cache, which likely contributed to its performance edge. Regarding temperature, we need details about the coolers being used on both sides.
This adds a small boost, 4x8GB offers memory performance similar to about 400MT/s under the same conditions, giving Intel a slight edge in speed. However, Cinebench shows little gain from memory rate, so the impact is minimal. The other two factors you mentioned won’t make a difference at all. The 12400F runs faster, that’s the main point. I’m surprised the improvement isn’t larger; it should be roughly 700 points in Cinebench 2024. I’d wonder if power throttling is happening given the current frequency and temperatures. If you meant clock speeds as the reason for surprise, it’s because they don’t line up well. Many other elements affect processor speed beyond just frequency—things like architecture, cache, and memory aren’t considered here, making it an unreliable measure. The 12400F and the 5500 differ greatly in design, cache, memory systems, etc., all of which matter. Clock speed only matters when comparing CPUs with similar architecture, cache size, and core count, such as 12400F versus 12600—not across generations or between AMD and Intel.
It confused me initially because I thought it referred to Zen 5, but it's actually the 5000 series. I understand now that the numbers match quite closely.
At 3333 MHz versus 3600 MHz, assuming similar clock speeds, the Ryzen configuration would likely benefit from more memory capacity. Differences in timing or IMC could also play a role, but slower memory speeds wouldn’t clearly help unless it affects other factors. Since both systems use dual channels, adding more sticks complicates achieving those specific frequencies.
3333MT/s also fits into 4x8GB configurations, which is dual rank, whereas 3600MT/s in 2x8GB is likely single rank. The performance gains come from the rank interleaving, making 4x8GB more efficient. I’m assuming the hardware is running at the specified speeds, so the challenge isn’t too great—especially since even with mixed memory, 3333 is manageable on the 12400F.
Why do you assume that? It's nowhere stated whether these are dual-rank or single-rank sticks. I'm afraid you are confused. That video doesn't really explain much, but it clearly states that the comparison is between two single-rank sticks and four single-rank sticks, all coming from the same kit. Then it adds per Level1techs that 2 16GB single-rank sticks would perform better than any of the 8GB configurations. There's no test with dual-rank memory, nor any mention I could see in the conclusions (which are also clearly labeled "this doesn't mean it's always better").
Since all 8GB sticks released after 2017 are single rank, stacking two in the same channel gives dual rank. Dual rank refers to the 4x8GB configuration, as it behaves similarly to 2x16GB in performance, even though compatibility varies. Labeling 4x8GB as dual rank is simply a convenient way to describe its impact.