CPU Comparison
Intel Core i5-7400 vs Intel Core i5-3550
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.
The Bottom Line
Overview & Launch
Specifications Compared
Performance Compared
Productivity
Solid performance for standard office tasks, but limited by 4 threads in heavy multitasking.
Handles basic office apps, but struggles with heavy multitasking.
Gaming
Can run older games well but will bottleneck modern GPUs significantly.
Can run older games fine, but lacks single-thread speed for modern AAA titles.
Virtualization
Basic VM support is possible, but performance is restricted by core count.
Limited by 4 threads, but VT-x/VT-d support allows basic VM usage.
Efficiency
65W TDP is well-managed and easy to cool.
Good efficiency for 2012, but outdated by modern 14nm/10nm standards.
Specialized Performance
AI / ML
- No AI acceleration hardware
- Will struggle with any local AI inference
- No AI hardware
- Unsuitable for modern AI workloads
Content Creation
Gaming
- 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
- Requires a dedicated GPU
- Single-core performance is too low for modern games
- PCIe 3.0 support is a plus for compatibility
Industry Impact
Best CPU by Use Case
Target Audience
Strengths & Weaknesses
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
Pros
- True 4 physical cores
- Supports PCIe 3.0
- Low price on used market
- Good for legacy system repairs
Cons
- Obsolete 22nm process
- Locked multiplier
- Weak HD 2500 integrated graphics
- Uses DDR3 memory
Competitors & Alternatives
Intel Core i5-7400
- AMD Ryzen 3 1200Rival
Desktop
- AMD Ryzen 5 1400Rival
Desktop
- Intel Core i3-7100Rival
Desktop
- Intel Core i5-6400Rival
Desktop
- AMD FX-8350Rival
Desktop
Successor with 6 cores, offering vastly superior modern performance.
Compare head-to-head- AMD Ryzen 5 1600Alt
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 3600Alt
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 i5-3550
- AMD FX-4300Rival
Desktop
- AMD FX-6100Rival
Desktop
- Compare head-to-headIntel Core i5-3570Rival
Desktop
- Intel Core i5-3450Rival
Desktop
- AMD A10-5800KRival
Desktop
Vastly superior modern quad-core with hyper-threading.
Compare head-to-head- AMD Ryzen 5 3600Alt
Excellent value used hex-core.
Slightly faster Haswell alternative for the same socket.
Compare head-to-headCheaper Sandy Bridge alternative if overclocking is desired.
Compare head-to-head- AMD Ryzen 3 4100Alt
Budget modern alternative.
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 reviewA solid legacy processor that still handles basic tasks, but lacks the performance and modern features needed for current workloads.
Best for: The Core i5-3550 is completely obsolete and should not be considered for a new build. If you are repairing an older LGA 1155 system or building a budget retro gaming rig, it can be a functional, cheap drop-in part. It still handles basic web browsing and document editing adequately, provided you use lightweight software and an SSD. However, its lack of modern instruction sets and low single-thread performance will bottleneck any modern GPU or application. If you have an existing system, it might be worth a cheap upgrade from a Pentium or i3, but otherwise, save your money for a modern platform. Do not spend more than a few dollars on this chip, as even the cheapest new processors offer vastly superior performance-per-watt.
Read the full reviewFrequently Asked Questions
Which is faster for gaming, Intel Core i5-7400 or Intel Core i5-3550?
For gaming, the Intel Core i5-7400 leads with a gaming performance score of 45/100 among Intel Core i5-7400 and Intel Core i5-3550.
Which uses less power?
The Intel Core i5-7400 has the lowest rated TDP. Power draw across these chips: Intel Core i5-7400 (65 W), Intel Core i5-3550 (77 W).
Do Intel Core i5-7400 and Intel Core i5-3550 use the same socket?
No. They use different sockets (Intel Core i5-7400: Intel Socket 1151, Intel Core i5-3550: Intel Socket 1155 (LGA1155)), so each needs a compatible motherboard.
Which is faster in multi-core benchmarks?
The Intel Core i5-3550 posts the highest multi-core benchmark score. Multi-core results: Intel Core i5-7400 (5,200), Intel Core i5-3550 (6,000). Benchmark figures are approximate and workload-dependent.