CPU Comparison

Intel Core i5-7400 vs Intel Core i5-7600T

A side-by-side comparison of specs, performance and value. The Intel Core i5-7400 is a mainstream desktop processor launched in early 2017 as part of the 7th Generation Kaby Lake lineup. Designed as the entry point for the Core i5 desktop family, it features four physical cores operating at a base frequency of 3.0 GHz, with the ability to boost up to 3.5 GHz. Manufactured on Intel's mature 14nm process, it fits into the standard 65-watt TDP envelope, making it compatible with a wide range of cooling solutions and motherboards. The chip lacks Hyper-Threading, handling four threads simultaneously, which was standard for i5 processors of this generation. It integrates Intel HD 630 graphics, providing adequate performance for everyday multimedia tasks and hardware-accelerated video decoding. Supporting dual-channel DDR4 memory at 2400 MT/s and featuring 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes, the i5-7400 was widely adopted in budget gaming rigs and office PCs. While it has been surpassed by modern processors, it remains a functional solution for basic computing needs and legacy system builds.

Intel · Core i5
Intel Core i5-7400
4C / 4T3.5 GHz65 W
6
Full review
Top pick
Intel · Core i5
Intel Core i5-7600T
4C / 4T3.7 GHz35 W
6.5
Full review

The Bottom Line

Overview & Launch

Brand
Intel
Intel
Market
Desktop
Desktop
Segment
Desktop
Desktop
Generation
Core i5 (Kaby Lake)
Core i5 (Kaby Lake)
Launched
2017
2017
Status
Active
Active
Codename
Kaby Lake
Kaby Lake
Series
Core i5
Core i5
Family
7th Generation Core i5
7th Generation Core i5
Predecessor
Intel Core i5-6400
Intel Core i5-6500T
Successor
Intel Core i5-8400
Intel Core i5-8500T

Specifications Compared

Cores & Clocks
Cores
4
4
Threads
4
4
Base Clock
3 GHz
2.8 GHz
Boost Clock
3.5 GHz
3.7 GHz
Cache & Power
L3 Cache
6 MB
6 MB
TDP
65 W
35 W
Architecture
Architecture
Kaby Lake
Kaby Lake
Process Node
14nm
14nm
Memory
Memory Type
DDR4
DDR4
Memory Speed
2400 MT/s
2400 MT/s
Memory Channels
Dual (2)
Dual (2)
Max Memory
64 GB
64 GB
Platform & I/O
Socket
Intel Socket 1151
Intel Socket 1151
PCIe Version
Gen 3
Gen 3
PCIe Lanes
16
16
Integrated GPU
Yes
Yes
Unlocked
No
No

Performance Compared

Productivity

Intel Core i5-7400Best70

Solid performance for standard office tasks, but limited by 4 threads in heavy multitasking.

Intel Core i5-7600T65

Handles everyday office tasks well but struggles with heavy multi-tasking due to 4 threads.

Gaming

Intel Core i5-7400Best45

Can run older games well but will bottleneck modern GPUs significantly.

Intel Core i5-7600T35

HD 630 graphics are only suitable for older or very light 2D games.

Virtualization

Intel Core i5-7400Best45

Basic VM support is possible, but performance is restricted by core count.

Intel Core i5-7600T40

Limited capability for virtual machines due to the lack of Hyper-Threading.

Efficiency

Intel Core i5-740080

65W TDP is well-managed and easy to cool.

Intel Core i5-7600TBest95

Exceptional power efficiency tailored for 35W thermal envelopes.

Specialized Performance

AI / ML

Intel Core i5-7400Poor
  • No AI acceleration hardware
  • Will struggle with any local AI inference
Intel Core i5-7600TPoor
  • No dedicated AI hardware
  • Inference tasks will be extremely slow

Content Creation

Intel Core i5-7400Basic
Basic PhotoshopWeb DesignDocument Editing
Intel Core i5-7600TBasic
Basic Photo EditingDocument ProcessingWeb Design

Gaming

Intel Core i5-7400Poor
  • Heavily bottlenecked by 4 threads in modern titles
  • Acceptable for retro or e-sports titles with a low-end GPU
  • HD 630 not suitable for modern gaming without a dedicated GPU
Intel Core i5-7600TPoor
  • Only suitable for legacy games
  • HD 630 lacks the power for modern 3D titles
  • Requires a discrete GPU for any serious gaming

Industry Impact

Gaming
Moderate
Low
Workstations
Low
Low
Content Creation
Low
Low
Virtualization
Low
Low

Best CPU by Use Case

Office Applications
Excellent
Very Good
Web Browsing
Excellent
Very Good
Light Coding
Good
Good
Budget Gaming (Legacy)
Fair
Video Editing
Poor
4K Video Playback
Good
Gaming
Poor

Target Audience

Gamers
Content Creators
Developers
Workstation Users
Streamers
Office / Productivity
Targeted
Targeted
Students
Targeted
Targeted

Strengths & Weaknesses

Intel Core i5-7400

Pros

  • Good single-core performance for basic tasks
  • Low 65W TDP is easy to cool
  • Hardware video decoding for modern codecs
  • Widely compatible with LGA 1151 motherboards
  • Affordable on the used market

Cons

  • Only 4 threads limits modern multitasking
  • Locked multiplier prevents overclocking
  • No PCIe Gen 4 support
  • Bottlenecks modern mid-range GPUs
  • Not supported on Windows 11 officially
Intel Core i5-7600T

Pros

  • Extremely low 35W TDP
  • Good single-thread performance for basic tasks
  • Hardware decoding for modern video codecs
  • Ideal for fanless or compact SFF cases
  • Affordable on the used market

Cons

  • Lacks Hyper-Threading
  • Low base clock of 2.8 GHz
  • Weak integrated graphics
  • Locked multiplier prevents overclocking
  • Outperformed by modern low-power CPUs

Competitors & Alternatives

Intel Core i5-7400

  • AMD Ryzen 3 1200

    Desktop

    Rival
  • AMD Ryzen 5 1400

    Desktop

    Rival
  • Intel Core i3-7100

    Desktop

    Rival
  • Intel Core i5-6400

    Desktop

    Rival
  • AMD FX-8350

    Desktop

    Rival
  • Successor with 6 cores, offering vastly superior modern performance.

    Compare head-to-head
  • AMD Ryzen 5 1600
    Alt

    Contemporary AMD alternative with 6 cores and 12 threads.

  • A slight step up in clock speeds if sticking to 7th Gen.

    Compare head-to-head
  • AMD Ryzen 5 3600
    Alt

    A much better modern alternative for a budget build.

  • A modern budget CPU that destroys this chip in every metric.

    Compare head-to-head

Intel Core i5-7600T

  • AMD Ryzen 5 1400

    Desktop

    Rival
  • AMD Ryzen 3 1200

    Desktop

    Rival
  • Compare head-to-head
  • Intel Core i3-7100

    Desktop

    Rival
  • AMD A10-9700

    Desktop

    Rival
  • Coffee Lake successor with 6 cores for much better multi-core performance.

    Compare head-to-head
  • AMD Ryzen 5 3400GE
    Alt

    A low-power AMD alternative with better integrated graphics.

  • A slightly lower-tier alternative if cost is the primary concern.

    Compare head-to-head
  • Intel NUC 11
    Alt

    A complete modern compact system solution with vastly superior efficiency.

  • AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE
    Alt

    Another low-power desktop alternative with competitive performance.

Our Verdict on Each

A standard quad-core CPU of its era that handles basic tasks well, but lacks Hyper-Threading and is heavily bottlenecked in modern multi-threaded workloads.

Best for: Keeping an existing LGA 1151 system alive for basic office work.

Read the full review

An efficient quad-core CPU for compact builds, but its low TDP limits multi-core performance and it lacks modern features like Hyper-Threading.

Best for: Building a silent, low-power mini PC for web browsing and office work using used parts.

Read the full review

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better, Intel Core i5-7400 or Intel Core i5-7600T?

Based on our editorial ratings, the Intel Core i5-7600T comes out ahead with a score of 6.5/10. That said, the best choice depends on your workload — check the spec and performance breakdown above for gaming, productivity and efficiency differences.

Which is faster for gaming, Intel Core i5-7400 or Intel Core i5-7600T?

For gaming, the Intel Core i5-7400 leads with a gaming performance score of 45/100 among Intel Core i5-7400 and Intel Core i5-7600T.

Which uses less power?

The Intel Core i5-7600T has the lowest rated TDP. Power draw across these chips: Intel Core i5-7400 (65 W), Intel Core i5-7600T (35 W).

Do Intel Core i5-7400 and Intel Core i5-7600T use the same socket?

Yes — all of these CPUs use the Intel Socket 1151 socket, so they share compatible motherboards.

Which is faster in multi-core benchmarks?

The Intel Core i5-7400 posts the highest multi-core benchmark score. Multi-core results: Intel Core i5-7400 (5,200), Intel Core i5-7600T (4,400). Benchmark figures are approximate and workload-dependent.