AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS vs Intel Core i5-14400 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-14400 and AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS represent two distinct approaches to processing power: one is a desktop-focused chip built for sustained multi-threaded workloads, while the other is a mobile-first part designed to deliver high performance within a constrained power envelope. The benchmark data shows a stark split, with the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS winning 14 of the 17 head-to-head tests, yet the Intel Core i5-14400 claiming the most lopsided victories in the Cinebench suite. The i5-14400’s wins are concentrated and decisive, while the 7940HS’s wins, though numerous, vary in magnitude from a narrow 2.1% margin to a substantial 27.9%. Understanding which processor is superior requires looking beyond the win count and examining the specific workloads and architectural philosophies behind each chip.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-14400 establishes its dominance in the Cinebench rendering benchmarks, which are heavily dependent on sustained multi-core performance. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i5-14400 scores 21315, which is 27.5% higher than the 16713 scored by the 7940HS. This is the largest margin of victory for either processor in any test, and it signals that the Intel chip is the better choice for prolonged, all-core workloads such as 3D rendering, video encoding, and other content creation tasks that can utilize all available threads. The i5-14400 also takes the single-core Cinebench R23 test with a score of 3009, a massive 68.1% lead over the 7940HS’s 1790, and wins Cinebench R15 single-core (303 vs. 283, a 7.1% margin). This suggests that for applications that rely on a single heavily-threaded task, the Intel part holds a clear advantage in raw throughput.

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS, conversely, wins across a broader spectrum of benchmarks, including Geekbench, PassMark, and 3DMark tests. Its most significant victories come in PassMark extended instructions (27480 vs. 19816, a 27.9% lead), PassMark data encryption (21777 vs. 16731, a 23.2% lead), and PassMark random string sorting (42386 vs. 32346, a 23.7% lead). It also wins in integer math (103044 vs. 82017, a 20.4% lead) and data compression (365352 vs. 314995, a 13.8% lead). The 7940HS’s Geekbench wins are notable as well, with a 22.9% advantage in multi-core (12724 vs. 9807) and an 11.1% advantage in single-core (2144 vs. 1905). The data indicates that the 7940HS excels in varied, mixed workloads that include encryption, compression, and general-purpose computing, while the i5-14400 is a specialist in rendering-style tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures and manufacturing processes. The Intel Core i5-14400 uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, and is fabricated on Intel’s 10 nm process node with a die size of 215 mm². It features 10 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS, in contrast, is built on the Zen 4 architecture with the codename Phoenix, and is manufactured on TSMC’s 4 nm process node, resulting in a smaller die size of 178 mm². It has 8 cores and 16 threads, with a higher base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz.

The cache hierarchies also differ significantly. The i5-14400 has a larger L1 cache at 80 KB per core and a larger L2 cache at 1.25 MB per core, while the 7940HS has 64 KB per core for L1 and 1 MB per core for L2. For L3 cache, the Intel part offers 20 MB shared, whereas the AMD part provides 16 MB shared. The Intel chip supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the AMD chip supports only DDR5. Another key difference is the memory bandwidth: the 7940HS is rated at 89.6 GB/s, while the i5-14400 has no listed memory bandwidth specification. The integrated graphics also differ, with the Intel using UHD Graphics 730 and the AMD using Radeon 780M. The Intel part is a desktop processor on the Intel Socket 1700, while the AMD is a mobile processor on the AMD Socket FP8, and the i5-14400 has a TDP of 65 watts compared to the 7940HS’s 35 watts.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400 has 10 cores, while the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS has 8 cores. Both have 16 threads.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: No, the Intel Core i5-14400 is faster in that test. The i5-14400 scores 21315, which is 27.5% higher than the 7940HS’s score of 16713.

Q: Which processor wins the majority of the benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS wins 14 out of the 17 head-to-head benchmark tests, while the Intel Core i5-14400 wins 3.

Q: What is the difference in their base clock speeds?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS has a higher base clock of 4.00 GHz, compared to the Intel Core i5-14400’s base clock of 2.50 GHz.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-14400 support DDR4 memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Core i5-14400 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, whereas the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS supports only DDR5.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400 is built on a 10 nm process node, while the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS is built on a 4 nm process node.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specifications where the two processors differ, based solely on the data provided.

| Specification | Intel Core i5-14400 | AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Cores | 10 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.70 GHz | 5.20 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 35 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | AMD Socket FP8 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Zen 4 |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 4 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 215 mm² | 178 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 20 MB (shared) | 16 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not specified | 89.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Radeon 780M |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the head-to-head data is the Cinebench R23 single-core test, where the Intel Core i5-14400 scores 3009, a 68.1% lead over the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS’s 1790. This is a massive gap that suggests a fundamental difference in how the two chips handle single-threaded instructions, despite the 7940HS having a higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz compared to 4.70 GHz. The Intel chip also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by a solid 27.5% margin (21315 vs. 16713), and Cinebench R15 single-core by 7.1% (303 vs. 283). These results indicate a clear Intel advantage in the Cinebench suite.

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS, however, shows its strength in other areas. In Geekbench multi-core, it scores 12724, which is 22.9% higher than the Intel’s 9807. This is a significant margin and suggests the 7940HS is better optimized for the types of workloads Geekbench measures, which include encryption, compression, and image processing. The 7940HS also wins Geekbench single-core with a 2144 score, an 11.1% lead over the i5-14400’s 1905. In PassMark tests, the 7940HS’s largest win is in extended instructions, where it scores 27480, a 27.9% lead over the i5-14400’s 19816. Other notable PassMark wins for the 7940HS include data encryption (21777 vs. 16731, a 23.2% lead), random string sorting (42386 vs. 32346, a 23.7% lead), and integer math (103044 vs. 82017, a 20.4% lead). The 7940HS also wins in data compression (365352 vs. 314995, a 13.8% lead) and multithread (30098 vs. 25080, a 16.7% lead). The smallest margins of victory for the 7940HS are in PassMark floating point math (62897 vs. 61549, a 2.1% lead) and PassMark physics (1450 vs. 1396, a 3.7% lead).

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split based on workload type. The Intel Core i5-14400 is the definitive choice for users whose primary applications are rendering and other sustained multi-core tasks, as evidenced by its commanding 27.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and its 68.1% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core. The benchmark results indicate that this processor is optimized for Cinebench-style workloads, making it a strong candidate for desktop content-creation builds. Its larger L3 cache (20 MB vs. 16 MB) and higher TDP (65 W vs. 35 W) likely contribute to this sustained performance advantage.

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS, on the other hand, is the more versatile performer across a wider range of benchmarks, winning 14 of the 17 tests. Its wins in Geekbench and PassMark suites suggest it is better suited for general-purpose computing, data processing, and security-related tasks like encryption. The 7940HS’s higher base clock (4.00 GHz vs. 2.50 GHz) and boost clock (5.20 GHz vs. 4.70 GHz), combined with its smaller 4 nm process node, likely contribute to its superior performance in these varied workloads. For a mobile user who needs a capable all-rounder for a laptop, the 7940HS, with its 35 W TDP, presents a compelling case. The choice is therefore not about which processor is universally faster, but which is faster for the specific tasks at hand. For rendering, pick the Intel. For everything else, the data points to the AMD.