This was posted 4 years 3 months 10 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Intel Core i5-10400F 10th Gen (6-Core, 12 Thread CPU, No IGPU) $219 + Delivery @ Shopping Express

1030
Intel Core i5-10400F 10th Gen (6-Core, 12 Thread CPU, No IGPU) $219 + Delivery @ Shopping Express
Go to Deal
AlextheMeertkat on 21/09/2020 - 09:55 shoppingexpress.com.au (773 clicks)
Last edited 22/09/2020 - 13:12 by 1 other user

I know there is no much love for this CPU here but given how overpriced (in my opinion) Ryzen 5 3600 at the moment that can be considered as a deal.

I am pretty sure none of us will notice the real world difference from Ryzen 5 3600 even if the 10400(f) is used at the 2666 RAM speed on any B460 motherboard (the cheapest one is currently $119, for example, this one https://www.shoppingexpress.com.au/buy/asrock-b460m-hdv-inte…) but it is around $80 cheaper with the $20 more expensive momotherboard (if you are happy to use the cheapest b450 motherboad for the Ryzen 5 3600).
Alternatively, you can spend the saved $80 on a z490 motherboard if you can't cope with the 2666 speed (the cheapest z490 is currently $189 https://www.shoppingexpress.com.au/buy/gigabyte-z490m-intel-…).

$219 + $189 v.s. $299 + $99 -> $10 difference.

Appendix 1.
I personally wouldn't trust youtubers with 100+ subscribers, I can simply imagine that they are biased for some reasons, so I tried to use google translate to find some, as I believe, less biased reviews, so I ended up with this Ukrainian dude, I don't think that intel or amd have approached him, so such reviews are more reliable and unbiased in my view.
https://www.overclockers.ua/cpu/intel-core-i5-10400-i5-8600k…
Ignore the text, the charts are in English.
Note. He compares against the 3600x which is even higher spec than the 3600.

Computing Computer Component CPU Intel

Related Stores

Shopping Express
Shopping Express

closed Comments

  • cycleri3 on 21/09/2020 - 10:07
    -2

    Don't forget there is no cooler included in this Intel, so add money for that in your calculation.

    • Mortgagetightass on 21/09/2020 - 10:11
      +14

      Cooler is included, all F CPUs have one, the K and KF's don't.

      Source, have one.

      • cycleri3 on 21/09/2020 - 10:12
        +2

        deal link says no

        • rocket142 on 21/09/2020 - 10:17
          +7

          Shopping Express made a boo boo with the listing - it does indeed come with a cooler.

  • [Deactivated] on 21/09/2020 - 10:14
    +2

    This one has IGPU and Cooler:
    https://www.shoppingexpress.com.au/buy/intel-core-i5-10400-4…

  • hanke on 21/09/2020 - 10:16
    +12

    I think this is a good deal, but in a bad time. Ryzen 4000 release is coming very soon, which will likely reduce the price of Ryzen 3000 and make Intel follow suit, so it's better to hold off unless you desperately need one now.

  • notme on 21/09/2020 - 10:17
    +4

    The title is a bit misleading 4.3ghz that's only boost the base clock is 2.9GHz.

    • ItsMeAgro on 21/09/2020 - 11:13
      +4

      I mean, clock speed is always misleading. I haven't looked at CPU speed Ghz since back when they were Mhz.

  • Batz on 21/09/2020 - 10:18
    +2

    Not an intel fan but upvoting because of the great info in the post!

  • RedHab on 21/09/2020 - 10:18
    +4

    Thanks for the detailed write-up!

  • garage sale on 21/09/2020 - 10:37
    +1

    Love intel but I usually buy with the GPU so that can be used for office type work, or I can add GPU card later if needed.

  • Jec on 21/09/2020 - 10:54
    -7

    From UserBenchmark:
    "Compared to the similarly priced Ryzen 5 3600, the 10400F’s lower memory latency gives it the lead in gaming and effective speed benchmarks. Since the Ryzen architecture creates a gaming bottleneck, it is necessary to upgrade to a higher tier, Intel CPU for better gaming performance. On the other hand comparing the i5-10400F and the i3-10100 shows that the 10100 offers comparable gaming performance for 22% less money whilst also including integrated graphics."

    • abctoz on 21/09/2020 - 10:57
      +2

      interestingly there seems to be little difference in input lag with the latest ryzens vs intel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UhaZ8VT4fU

    • ethan961 on 21/09/2020 - 11:04
      +10

      Yes, that's UserBenchmark which is well known to be Intel biased. It is true that Intel has lower memory latency, but in general their summaries should not be viewed as a neutral source of comparison. To say that it is necessary to upgrade to high tier Intel is quite the stretch.

    • [Deactivated] on 21/09/2020 - 11:06
      +10

      Userbenchmark is a garbage site for a large amount of reasons and has zero credibility within tech communities. Google it if you want to find out more

      • ln28909 on 21/09/2020 - 11:17
        -5

        why, it would give you the most accurate representation of what it would be like in your system compared to those control test by tech reviewers

        • Clear on 21/09/2020 - 11:20
          -2

          Because tech reviewers totally aren't paid off and are full of integrity /s

          • [Deactivated] on 21/09/2020 - 11:36
            +4

            @Clear: That's some big claims implying every techreviewer is paid off, and then telling people to trust a SEO spam site instead lmao.

            Who's doing the paying, surely the big evil tech company with the history of monopolistic practices, the big market share to protect, and the big financial muscle right? That AM.. oh wait no.

            • Clear on 21/09/2020 - 15:28

              @[Deactivated]: Never implied all are paid off. I'd hate to be those 3 people in denial that some tech reviewers get paid off though. Seems they don't understand that the /s stands for sarcasm or understand the world of affiliate marketing. E.g. tech comparison websites.

              Though many tech websites and channels fall victim to the affiliate income and other offers made to them by companies. It's why I'm no longer an editor at one of the big Chinese tech sites. I wasn't willing to produce garbage to appease stores despite the offer of $$$ per post and potential affiliate income. Quite a few of them are spammy now.

              Even the big ones like everyone's favourite Linus get paid but they're more transparent and talk about their sponsors mid video.

              • Clear on 22/09/2020 - 13:49

                @Clear: Make that 5 people who believe there's no such thing as sponsored content. Stupidity increases each day.

        • falconNinja on 21/09/2020 - 11:30
          +1

          Look at the 660ti vs 1050ti, tell me how that makes sense.
          https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-660-Ti-vs-N…

          • ln28909 on 21/09/2020 - 11:34
            +1

            @falconNinja: care to elaborate, I don't know anything about cards that are older than RTX series

        • brimmy11 on 21/09/2020 - 11:43
          +1

          Userbenchmark is well known to be bias and should not be trusted.

          • ln28909 on 21/09/2020 - 11:47

            @brimmy11: Just saying there is no way your system will be running in the same condition as those test benchs so at least user benchmark is a better representation, value of big data

            • brimmy11 on 21/09/2020 - 12:11
              +2

              @ln28909: It's not because the creator gets to arbitrarily chose the weightings of the statistics which are bias, do some research before talking. If you google 'userbenchmark' there are multiple results on the first page that denounce it, that's without even adding any bad keywords to the search.

              Userbenchmark is banned in both the AMD and Intel subreddits for a reason.

              • ln28909 on 21/09/2020 - 12:13
                +1

                @brimmy11: are you telling me that say the fps score of CSGO on there is weighted? if so, on what?

                • brimmy11 on 21/09/2020 - 12:20

                  @ln28909: The game FPS benchmarks are mostly fine, other than not including minimum/1%'s which is arguably more important than max/avg FPS. The issue is with all the other metrics under "Effective Speed", "Average Score", "Overclocked Score", "Value & Sentiment", "Nice To Haves" and "Conclusion".

                  There's an article here about their dodgy CPU calculations https://www.tomshardware.com/news/userbenchmark-benchmark-ch… - according to their metrics a 4c/4t i3 is better than an 18c/36t i9.

                  • ln28909 on 21/09/2020 - 12:35
                    +1

                    @brimmy11: Like maybe the effective speed is skew by this weighting but from what I've read like the average scores are fine

                    To me stills better way to compare than just using tech reviewers alone

                    • brimmy11 on 21/09/2020 - 12:53
                      +3

                      @ln28909: How is non-controlled user submitted benchmarks rolled up in to arbitrary measurements better than a tech reviewer? With tech reviewers you have a professional reviewing the hardware and get the raw results to interpret yourself. Userbenchmark is not a good tool to use to compare hardware, this is universally agreed by the whole tech community.

                      • ln28909 on 21/09/2020 - 12:59

                        @brimmy11: Are you more similar to other users or to the test benches in opennair

                        • ethan961 on 21/09/2020 - 14:23
                          +1

                          @ln28909: Is your point that you want scores for thermal throttling products? Why? If the reviewer tests the stock cooling solution or reasonable substitute when OEM isn't supplied, should that not be a reasonable baseline? It's on you if you let a 300W GPU turn your case into an oven with no airflow to the degree that you impact performance of other parts.

      • ItsMeAgro on 21/09/2020 - 11:20
        +1

        Eh, their SSD benchmarks seem OK.

        I don't think the base CPU numbers are necessarily wrong, either, except for the most important one: the "total" figure, which is heavily weighted to his favourite "eFPS" benchmark he made up, that heavily penalises stuttering compared to raw FPS averages.

        But those written summaries make the owner look like a childish intel fanboy.

    • Jec on 22/09/2020 - 10:59
      +1

      Hi - ty for letting me know about how absolutely trashy Userbenchmark is hahahaha
      I'd like to point out that all I did was quote them, and sourced them, but I can understand the neg votes. Will avoid them in the future, thank you all again!

  • aaronsd on 21/09/2020 - 11:05
    -1

    There's some interesting posts in here about what is better this compared to that, I totally get the base clock is 2.9GHz, but it does boost to 4.3GHz.

    Something interesting I like to have a look at when claims get raised is this website here > https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-10400F-v…

    There's a shit load of benchmarks done by users on the Ryzen 3600 and but so many on the 10400F so maybe there are some arguements there but a sample size of 2k benchmarks is still pretty darn good. You can tell from performance, the two CPU are fairly comparative or the Intel edges out just a bit better, since the whole "mid range" CPUs are so closely stacked together on the bell curve this 3-5% difference ends up putting the 10400F at the 41st speed rank spot and the 3600 at the 86th (as of writing this comment).

    So for all other things being equal, if you are after single-core gaming performance, then the Core i5 edges out slightly. If you are after aggressive multi-tasking or multi-core usage, then the Ryzen 3600 edges out slightly.

    TL;DR: good find OP, I think you've hit the nail on the head and found a good deal. Your comparison is fair to the 3600, don't listen to the haters. I personally switched over from Intel to AMD as my CPU core in my home PC so I am by no means a "fan boy" in either camp and don't feel any allegiance either way!!

    • No Child Support on 21/09/2020 - 11:15
      +12

      Stopped reading when you mentioned userbenchmark.

      • aaronsd on 21/09/2020 - 11:16
        +1

        Haha, a lot of hate for it, I see the other comment someone else put in too, so does userbenchmark tilt the reviews benchmarks towards Intel?

        Ended up doing some more research into it. Okay sure, userbenchmark is a terrible website, when looking at things like Techspot > https://www.techspot.com/review/2032-intel-core-i5-10400/

        The 10400F does do 4.3GHz single core boost though, and the 3600 does 4.2GHz for single core max boost, so in high fps low resolution gaming makes sense that the 10400F does perform better. So at the end of the day, what I have mentioned in my comment is still valid in terms of single core vs multi core. Or is there more to it than just the raw CPU power going on here.

        Maybe that i5 needs to be paired with a really good mobo to make use of that max boost?

    • [Deactivated] on 21/09/2020 - 11:20
      +6

      Userbenchmark is a terrible site with zero credibility and flawed benchmarks. It originaly was made as a SEO spam site, and now is just seeningly trying to hurt AMD for whatever reason. Google it if you want to find out more but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaWZKPUidUY

      Also the 10400F is slower single thread, and actually worse for gaming than the 3600 unless like OP said you pair it with a Z490, and even then it's barely faster whereas the 3600 is much faster in multithreaded tasks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csFwlKgZCzM&feature=share

      If you really want to save money then the 3300X makes more sense.

      This isn't a bad deal, it's a good deal. It's a good middle ground and gives a few options at prices different from AMD, but don't trust userbenchmark ever

      • aaronsd on 21/09/2020 - 11:23

        Okay yup apologies about userbenchmark, didn't realise how bad it is!!

        Where is evidence about the 10400F single thread performance though. I know from experience the 3600 is 4.2GHz single core max boost. The Intel specsheet for the 10400F says 4.3GHz single core max boost?

        Haha damn but all this makes me realise how little I know in this space and appreciate the info!!

        I own a 3600x myself and am very happy with the performance I am getting out of that in gaming, such a good deal compared to anything equivalent in the Intel space IMO.

        • [Deactivated] on 21/09/2020 - 11:31
          +4

          Single thread performance depends on clock speeds and IPC (instructions per clock). AMD has slightly higher IPC so at the same clockspeeds AMD is generally faster. Intel clocks higher than AMD usually which usually makes up for the IPC deficit and then some, but with the 10400F it's limited to only 4.3Ghz vs 5Ghz on other intel chips so it doesn't have that advantage. The other thing that makes Intel do well in games even when it has the similar performance is memory latency, again the 10400F doesn't have that advantage unless you pair it with a Z490 motherboard

          • aaronsd on 21/09/2020 - 12:06

            @[Deactivated]: Ahhh I see I see, thanks for taking the time to explain it. Sounds like comparing the Intel to the AMD for this particular pairing is terrible then!

        • brimmy11 on 21/09/2020 - 11:46

          Zen 2 has better IPC than Comet Lake so can perform more operations at the same frequency.

      • whorishmouth on 21/09/2020 - 14:50

        Is there another website for comparing that you recommend?

  • brrrrrgh on 21/09/2020 - 12:38
    +1

    This is a very capable gaming CPU but only when paired with Z490 and half decent memory. It's a bit niche and really you still cant beat b450+3600 for overall value.

    But in case the info is of any use , I used one of these in my Z490 system as a placeholder and ran it with 3800mhz c16 memory. It was faster in gaming than our Ryzen 3600 system with the same memory kit

    So close to the next Ryzen launch though, I wouldn't be buying any CPU right now. Both the existing Ryzen chips and Intel chips are going to both devalue massively and be out performed.. only thing which would change this is if AMD decided to up the pricing on the new chips

  • brrrrrgh on 21/09/2020 - 12:50

    Good point.. I kind of assumed people buying these chips are trying to build a system for as cheap as possible, but both Z490 or B550 would give a potential upgrade path

  • maddoggie101 on 21/09/2020 - 12:50

    I have an I7 8700, should I sell and buy this one?

    • brrrrrgh on 21/09/2020 - 12:57
      +1

      Probably not… performance would be similar and you would need to overhaul your system (new motherboard required)
      Unless you can work it so your old parts sell for similar to what the new setup will cost - cant go wrong then

    • MiscOzB on 21/09/2020 - 15:32
      +1

      Agree with above. Pretty pointless unless you can make a profit by selling and buying (both cpus and mobos). Doubt it'd be worth the hassle even if you could.

      8700 owner here too. Might hold on to it for another year or so, then maybe upgrade to 12th gen (10nm) (expected to launch second half of next year).

  • bazingaa on 21/09/2020 - 14:22

    Great deal, pair with the cheapest MB

  • Friskies on 21/09/2020 - 14:32

    If you want an unbias review of cpus/gpu/mobo, the best you will get is Gamers nexus. They go into great depth with their testing methodology and I've seen them burn giftcards sent with review units.
    https://www.youtube.com/user/GamersNexus

    Link for the processor in this post…

    https://youtu.be/csFwlKgZCzM

    • AlextheMeertkat on 21/09/2020 - 14:51
      +1

      This Gold Coast guy seems to be also adequate
      https://youtu.be/lqxVCzYlDCA
      And his opinion slightly different from Gamers Nexus' on this topic.

      • bazingaa on 21/09/2020 - 15:23

        He is great, building with used parts like me.

  • roh008 on 21/09/2020 - 16:34
    +1

    It's actually a great deal, even compared to the original good price of Ryzen 5 3600 of $280 (i paid this price)

    a good comparison here -

    https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-10400f/21.h…

    Compared to AMD's Ryzen 3600 and 3600X, the 10400F is slightly slower, by 4% and 6% respectively. It depends very much on the workload though, especially tasks that are easy to parallelize, like rendering, are AMD's strongest suit, and Intel has a clear lead in single and low-threaded apps, which are relevant to the majority of consumers today.

    I also feel that AMD still need to optimise bios behaviour across a number of manufacturers. Small glitches still, such as USB interrupts. Quite annoying when using USB out audio to a DAC.

  • roh008 on 21/09/2020 - 16:41

    see above

  • w37hsyea on 21/09/2020 - 17:17
    -1

    Deal breaker with no igpu

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join