AMD Ryzen 7 160 vs Intel Core i5-14401E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain any overlapping benchmark results between the AMD Ryzen 7 160 and the Intel Core i5-14401E. The AMD processor is measured with PassMark tests, while the Intel part is measured with Cinebench tests. Because the two chips were never run through the same workload suite, a direct score-for-score comparison is impossible. What the data does show is where each processor stands within its own measured context relative to its nearest rivals.

The AMD Ryzen 7 160 records an average benchmark score of 37117 across its PassMark suite. That places it at the 85th percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its closest rivals in average score are the Intel Core i7-13700 at 37135 (a delta of 0 percent), the Intel Core i9-12900T at 37112 (0 percent), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 at 37093 (0.1 percent ahead), and the AMD Ryzen 7 7735H at 37161 (0.1 percent behind). The Ryzen 7 160 essentially sits in a dead heat with these parts, all within a 0.2 percent band. Its strongest individual PassMark results include a multithread score of 12237, a single-thread score of 3435, an integer math score of 81370, and a floating point math score of 6673. Data compression reaches 242634, while random string sorting hits 25981. Extended instructions score 16170, and data encryption scores 15520. Prime number finding is low at 43, and physics is 793.

The Intel Core i5-14401E records an average benchmark score of 5253, placing it at the 60th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 at 5259 (0.1 percent ahead of the i5), the Intel Core i7-11700B at 5241 (0.2 percent behind), the Intel Core i9-10850K at 5240 (0.2 percent behind), and the Intel Core i5-13400T at 5210 (0.8 percent behind). The i5-14401E's Cinebench results show a multicore score of 18161 in Cinebench R23, a single-core score of 2564 in R23, a multicore score of 7627 in R20, a single-core score of 1076 in R20, a multicore score of 1830 in R15, and a single-core score of 258 in R15.

The two processors occupy different performance strata in the database. The Ryzen 7 160's 37117 average is roughly seven times the i5-14401E's 5253 average, but the two averages come from entirely different benchmark suites with different scoring scales. A percentile comparison is more meaningful: 85th percentile versus 60th percentile. That gap indicates the AMD part sits notably higher in the overall distribution of all CPUs, while the Intel part sits below it by 25 percentile points, even though the Intel part is a desktop chip and the AMD part is a mobile chip.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 records an average benchmark score of 37117, while the Intel Core i5-14401E records 5253. The AMD part's average is higher, but the scores come from different benchmark suites (PassMark for AMD, Cinebench for Intel), so the raw numbers are not directly comparable.

Q: How do the two processors rank against all CPUs?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 sits at the 85th percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel Core i5-14401E sits at the 60th percentile. The AMD part is ranked higher in the overall distribution.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each processor?

A: For the AMD Ryzen 7 160, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-13700 (37135 average, 0 percent delta), Intel Core i9-12900T (37112, 0 percent), AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 (37093, 0.1 percent ahead), and AMD Ryzen 7 7735H (37161, 0.1 percent behind). For the Intel Core i5-14401E, the nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 (5259, 0.1 percent ahead), Intel Core i7-11700B (5241, 0.2 percent behind), Intel Core i9-10850K (5240, 0.2 percent behind), and Intel Core i5-13400T (5210, 0.8 percent behind).

Q: What are the highest individual benchmark scores for each processor?

A: For the AMD Ryzen 7 160, the highest PassMark score is data compression at 242634, followed by integer math at 81370, random string sorting at 25981, and data encryption at 15520. For the Intel Core i5-14401E, the highest Cinebench score is multicore R23 at 18161, followed by multicore R20 at 7627, and multicore R15 at 1830.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 7 160 and the Intel Core i5-14401E list ECC memory support as true in the database.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 has a boost clock of 4.75 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-14401E has a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The AMD part is 0.05 GHz higher.

The Verdict

The data shows two processors aimed at different market segments with different performance profiles. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 is a mobile part with 8 cores and 16 threads, a 28 TDP, and a 6 nm process node. It records an 85th percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of 37117, placing it alongside desktop parts like the Intel Core i7-13700 and the Intel Core i9-12900T. The Intel Core i5-14401E is a desktop part with 6 cores and 12 threads, a 65 TDP, and a 10 nm process node. It records a 60th percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of 5253, placing it near older desktop parts like the Intel Core i9-10850K and the Intel Core i7-11700B.

For users focused on overall performance position, the AMD part is the higher-ranked chip. The 85th percentile versus 60th percentile gap is substantial. For users focused on Cinebench rendering performance specifically, the Intel part delivers a multicore R23 score of 18161, but no Cinebench data exists for the AMD part, so a direct rendering comparison is unavailable. The AMD part shows strong PassMark scores in data compression (242634) and integer math (81370), while the Intel part shows no PassMark data at all.

The choice comes down to segment and workload. The Ryzen 7 160 is the only one of the two built for mobile systems, with a lower TDP of 28 versus 65, and a smaller process node of 6 nm versus 10 nm. The i5-14401E is the only desktop part, with a higher TDP and a larger L3 cache of 20 MB versus 16 MB. Neither processor is unlocked for overclocking. Both support ECC memory. The AMD part uses DDR5 exclusively, while the Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

Specification Differences

The AMD Ryzen 7 160 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i5-14401E has 6 cores and 12 threads. The AMD base clock is 2.70 GHz versus 2.50 GHz for Intel, and the boost clock is 4.75 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. The TDP differs significantly: 28 for AMD, 65 for Intel. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP7, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700. The memory support differs: AMD lists DDR5 only, while Intel lists DDR4 and DDR5. The memory bandwidth is recorded for AMD at 76.8 GB/s, while no bandwidth figure is recorded for Intel. The PCIe capability differs: AMD lists Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while Intel lists Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ: AMD uses Radeon 680M, Intel uses UHD Graphics 730. The market segment differs: AMD is mobile, Intel is desktop. The release dates differ: AMD released on 2025-09-30, Intel on 2024-06-30. The part numbers also differ: AMD is 100-000000991(FP7r2), Intel is Q49JSRNJS.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 7 160 uses the Zen 3+ architecture, codenamed Rembrandt-R, and belongs to the Ryzen 7 generation. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process node by TSMC, with a die size of 210 mm². The cache layout includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel Core i5-14401E uses the Raptor Lake architecture, codenamed Raptor Lake-R, and belongs to the Core i5 generation within the Core 14th Gen series. It is fabricated on a 10 nm process node by Intel, with a die size of 215 mm². The cache layout includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The AMD part has more cores and threads, a smaller process node, and a smaller die. The Intel part has a larger L1 and L2 per core, a larger shared L3, and a slightly larger die. Both processors are actively in production, neither has an unlocked multiplier, and both support ECC memory.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 160 wins in raw core count and thread count: 8 cores and 16 threads versus 6 cores and 12 threads. It also wins on clock speed, with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.75 GHz, both higher than the Intel part's 2.50 GHz and 4.70 GHz. The AMD part wins on power efficiency, with a TDP of 28 versus 65, and on process technology, with 6 nm versus 10 nm. The AMD part wins on memory bandwidth, with a recorded 76.8 GB/s versus no recorded figure for Intel. The AMD part also has a higher PCIe generation (Gen 4 versus Gen 5), though Intel has fewer lanes (16 versus 20). The AMD part sits at the 85th percentile, which is higher than the Intel part's 60th percentile. In its own benchmark suite, the AMD part shows strong data compression (242634) and integer math (81370) results.

The Intel Core i5-14401E wins on cache capacity per core: 80 KB of L1 and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, versus 64 KB and 512 KB for AMD. It also wins on shared L3, with 20 MB versus 16 MB. The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the AMD part supports only DDR5. The Intel part has a newer PCIe generation (Gen 5 versus Gen 4), though with fewer lanes (16 versus 20). The Intel part is a desktop chip, which typically allows for different system integration than a mobile chip. In its own benchmark suite, the Intel part records a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 18161 and a single-core score of 2564, which are its strongest recorded results. The Intel part also has a smaller die size difference (215 mm² versus 210 mm², nearly the same) but a larger L3 cache overall. The Intel part's release date is earlier (2024-06-30 versus 2025-09-30), which may indicate a different maturity level in the database.

For users prioritizing mobile integration, lower power draw, higher core counts, and a higher overall percentile, the AMD Ryzen 7 160 is the stronger choice. For users prioritizing desktop integration, larger per-core caches, wider memory compatibility (DDR4 and DDR5), and Gen 5 PCIe, the Intel Core i5-14401E is the stronger choice. The data does not show any overlapping benchmark results, so a single workload comparison is not possible.