AMD Ryzen 7 8700F vs Intel Core i5-14401TE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a complete benchmark suite for the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F, while the Intel Core i5-14401TE has no recorded benchmark scores. This asymmetry makes a direct score-for-score comparison impossible, but the available data on the Ryzen 7 8700F can still be positioned against the broader CPU landscape using its percentile ranking and nearest rival scores.

The Ryzen 7 8700F sits at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 30,746 across all recorded tests. The nearest rivals in the database are tightly clustered around this figure: the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS averages 30,879, which is 0.4% higher than the 8700F. The Intel Core i5-13600H averages 30,548, trailing the 8700F by 0.6%. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T averages 30,468, a 0.9% deficit. The Intel Core i7-13700TE averages 31,028, leading the 8700F by 0.9%. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, indicating that the 8700F occupies a dense performance neighborhood where small benchmark variations separate adjacent parts.

Looking at the 8700F's own benchmark results, multi-threaded performance is consistently strong. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 26,646. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 11,191. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the score is 2,685. Geekbench multi-core shows 13,523. PassMark multi-thread reports 30,893. The 3DMark tests show a scaling pattern: 2 threads score 1,989, 4 threads score 3,839, 8 threads score 6,559, 16 threads score 7,883, and max threads score 7,861. The near-identical scores between 16 threads (7,883) and max threads (7,861) suggest the processor's 16 threads are fully utilized at that point, with no additional headroom from further thread scaling.

Single-threaded performance is also notable. Cinebench R23 single-core scores 3,761. Cinebench R20 single-core scores 1,579. Cinebench R15 single-core scores 378. Geekbench single-core scores 2,290. PassMark single-thread scores 3,872. The 3DMark single-thread test reports 1,008. These results place the 8700F in a competitive position for lightly threaded workloads, though the lack of a comparable Intel dataset prevents direct head-to-head conclusions.

PassMark specialized tests reveal specific strengths. Integer math scores 100,371. Floating point math scores 62,629. Extended instructions score 28,474. Data encryption scores 22,117. Data compression scores 378,160. Random string sorting scores 45,425. Prime number finding scores 98. Physics scores 1,553. These figures show a processor that handles arithmetic and data manipulation tasks with high throughput, but the absence of Intel comparison data means the analysis can only describe the AMD part's absolute capabilities, not its relative standing against the i5-14401TE.

FAQ

Q: Why is there no direct benchmark comparison between the Ryzen 7 8700F and the Core i5-14401TE?

A: The database contains a full benchmark suite for the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F, but the Intel Core i5-14401TE has no recorded benchmark scores and no average benchmark score. The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, with zero wins recorded for either processor.

Q: What is the Ryzen 7 8700F's overall performance ranking?

A: The Ryzen 7 8700F ranks at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 30,746. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS (30,879, 0.4% higher), Intel Core i5-13600H (30,548, 0.6% lower), Intel Core Ultra 5 225T (30,468, 0.9% lower), and Intel Core i7-13700TE (31,028, 0.9% higher).

Q: Does the Core i5-14401TE have any performance data at all?

A: No. The Intel Core i5-14401TE has an empty benchmarks array, a percentile rank of 50, and an average benchmark score of 0. Its nearest rivals list is also empty. The only recorded data for this processor is its specification information.

Q: How does the Ryzen 7 8700F scale from 2 threads to 16 threads in 3DMark?

A: The 3DMark scores show a steady progression: 1,989 at 2 threads, 3,839 at 4 threads, 6,559 at 8 threads, 7,883 at 16 threads, and 7,861 at max threads. The near-equality between the 16-thread and max-thread scores indicates the processor reaches full utilization at 16 threads.

Q: What is the Ryzen 7 8700F's strongest PassMark subtest result?

A: The highest PassMark subtest score is data compression at 378,160. Integer math follows at 100,371, floating point math at 62,629, and random string sorting at 45,425. The lowest subtest score is prime number finding at 98.

Q: Is the Core i5-14401TE's lack of benchmarks reflected in its market positioning?

A: The database shows the i5-14401TE at the 50th percentile among all CPUs, which is the median value, but with an average score of zero and no recorded tests, this percentile appears to be a placeholder rather than a measured result. The Ryzen 7 8700F has a measured 82nd percentile ranking backed by 25 individual benchmark scores.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design families. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F uses the Zen 4 architecture under the codename Phoenix, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core i5-14401TE uses the Raptor Lake architecture under the codename Raptor Lake-R, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry.

The AMD part belongs to the 8000 series and the Ryzen 7 generation specifically described as Zen 4 (Phoenix). The Intel part belongs to the Core 14th Gen series and is described as Raptor Lake Refresh. The process node difference is significant: 4 nm versus 10 nm. The AMD processor integrates 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel processor's transistor count is not recorded, but its die size is listed as 215 mm².

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Ryzen 7 8700F has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i5-14401TE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has larger per-core caches and a larger shared L3 pool, but it also has fewer cores, so the total cache distribution across the processor differs.

Memory support diverges. The AMD part supports only DDR5 with dual-channel memory bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus, but its memory bandwidth is not recorded. ECC memory support also differs: the AMD part does not support ECC, while the Intel part does.

PCIe capabilities differ. The Ryzen 7 8700F provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The Core i5-14401TE provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Intel part offers a newer PCIe generation but fewer lanes.

Integrated graphics present another distinction. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A. The Intel Core i5-14401TE includes UHD Graphics 730. This means the Intel part can output video without a discrete graphics card, while the AMD part requires one.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ. The Ryzen 7 8700F has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Core i5-14401TE has 6 cores and 12 threads. This gives the AMD part two additional cores and four additional threads.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The AMD part has a base clock of 4.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The AMD processor's base clock is more than double the Intel processor's base clock, while the boost clock advantage is 0.50 GHz.

Thermal design power differs. The Ryzen 7 8700F has a TDP of 65 watts. The Core i5-14401TE has a TDP of 45 watts. The Intel part consumes less power under its design specification.

Sockets are incompatible. The AMD part uses AMD Socket AM5. The Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700. These are not interchangeable.

The multiplier is unlocked on the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F, while the Intel Core i5-14401TE has a locked multiplier. This means the AMD part supports overclocking through multiplier adjustment, while the Intel part does not.

Release dates differ by three months. The AMD part was released on March 31, 2024. The Intel part was released on June 30, 2024. The AMD part has a recorded launch MSRP of $270. The Intel part has no recorded launch MSRP.

Manufacturer part numbers differ: the AMD part is listed as 100-000001590, the Intel part as Q4T4SRNJP.

The memory bus configuration is the same at dual-channel, but the memory types and ECC support differ as described in the architecture section. The AMD part's process node is 4 nm versus the Intel part's 10 nm. The AMD part's die size is 178 mm² versus the Intel part's 215 mm².

The Verdict

The data available for these two processors is one-sided. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F has a complete benchmark profile with 25 recorded scores, an 82nd percentile ranking, and an average score of 30,746. The Intel Core i5-14401TE has no recorded benchmarks, an average score of zero, and a 50th percentile ranking that appears unmeasured.

For buyers choosing between these two based strictly on recorded performance data, the Ryzen 7 8700F is the only option with evidence of its capabilities. The benchmark results show strong multi-threaded performance in Cinebench R23 (26,646), Cinebench R20 (11,191), and Geekbench multi-core (13,523). Single-threaded results are also robust, with Cinebench R23 single-core at 3,761 and Geekbench single-core at 2,290.

The specification comparison favors the AMD part in core count (8 versus 6), thread count (16 versus 12), base clock (4.10 GHz versus 2.00 GHz), boost clock (5.00 GHz versus 4.50 GHz), process node (4 nm versus 10 nm), PCIe generation (Gen 4 versus Gen 5, though the Intel part has newer Gen 5), and unlocked multiplier. The Intel part counters with lower TDP (45 watts versus 65 watts), larger L3 cache (20 MB versus 16 MB), support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, ECC memory support, integrated graphics, and a larger die size.

The Intel part's 45-watt TDP suggests lower power consumption, and its integrated graphics and ECC support make it suitable for specific embedded or power-constrained applications. The AMD part's higher clocks, more cores, and unlocked multiplier point toward performance-oriented desktop use.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 7 8700F wins in scenarios that demand raw compute throughput. Its 8 cores and 16 threads, combined with a 5.00 GHz boost clock, position it well for multi-threaded rendering, compilation, and content creation workloads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 26,646 and PassMark multi-thread score of 30,893 indicate strong parallel processing capability. The 4 nm process node and 25,000 million transistors suggest a dense, efficient design. The unlocked multiplier allows performance tuning for users who adjust clock speeds.

The Core i5-14401TE wins in scenarios where power efficiency and system flexibility matter more than peak performance. Its 45-watt TDP is lower than the AMD part's 65-watt TDP, which suits compact or thermally constrained builds. The integrated UHD Graphics 730 eliminates the need for a discrete graphics card in basic display applications. ECC memory support suits reliability-focused workloads such as file servers or data processing where memory errors are unacceptable. The support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory gives system builders choice in memory platform. The larger 20 MB L3 cache and larger per-core L1 and L2 caches may benefit certain cache-sensitive workloads, though without benchmark data this remains speculative.

The PCIe Gen 5 support on the Intel part offers newer connectivity standards, though with fewer lanes (16 versus 20). The Intel part's 4.50 GHz boost clock is still respectable, but its 2.00 GHz base clock is notably lower than the AMD part's 4.10 GHz base clock.

In the absence of Intel benchmark data, the recorded evidence supports the Ryzen 7 8700F as the higher-performing processor. The Intel part's advantages are primarily in power efficiency, integrated graphics, memory flexibility, and ECC support, all of which are specification-based rather than performance-based. Users who need measured performance should look to the AMD part. Users who need a low-power processor with integrated graphics and ECC memory may find the Intel part's specifications appealing, but its actual performance remains unquantified in the database.