AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440GE vs Intel Core i5-14400T Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core i5-14400T carries the only recorded benchmark scores in the database, while the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440GE has no benchmark entries at all. This asymmetry shapes the entire comparison. The i5-14400T posts an average benchmark score of 27166, placing it at the 79th percentile among all CPUs. The AMD part sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of zero, meaning no measured performance data exists for it in the database.

Looking at the Intel part's Cinebench results, the multicore scores show a clear progression across versions. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it reaches 1732 points. The R20 multicore test yields 7219 points, and the R23 multicore test produces 17189 points. Single-core results follow a similar pattern: 244 points in R15, 1018 in R20, and 2426 in R23. These numbers indicate strong scaling as the workload becomes more demanding, with the R23 multicore score roughly 7.1 times the R15 multicore figure.

PassMark results for the i5-14400T add further detail. The multithread score sits at 20223, while single-thread performance reaches 3512 points. Integer math posts 65667, floating-point math delivers 49139, and extended instructions score 14562. Data compression reaches 235636, data encryption comes in at 13244, and random string sorting hits 25181. The physics test records 1244 points, while the prime number search scores only 73. These figures paint a picture of a processor that handles integer-heavy and compression workloads particularly well, while the prime number test, which often reflects memory latency and branch prediction efficiency, shows a relatively low score.

The nearest rivals for the i5-14400T provide context for its average score. The Intel Core i9-9900K averages 27097, which is 0.3% lower than the i5-14400T's 27166. The AMD Ryzen 7 5700G averages 27051, sitting 0.4% lower. On the other side, the Intel Core i7-13700H averages 27355, which is 0.7% higher, and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355G averages 27382, 0.8% higher. The i5-14400T therefore sits in a tight cluster where all four rivals fall within roughly one percentage point of its score. The margin between the lowest rival (Ryzen 7 5700G at 27051) and the highest (Ryzen 3 PRO 5355G at 27382) is only 331 points, or about 1.2%. This suggests that the i5-14400T delivers performance essentially on par with a range of older and mobile processors, neither clearly leading nor trailing within this group.

Because the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440GE has no benchmark entries, there are no head-to-head wins to report for either side. The database records zero wins for the AMD part and zero wins for the Intel part. The comparison rests entirely on specifications and architectural differences rather than measured performance.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward choice for users who need verified performance: the Intel Core i5-14400T is the only option with recorded benchmark results. Its average score of 27166 and 79th percentile placement demonstrate measurable capability. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440GE has no benchmark data, so its performance cannot be quantified from the database. Any decision involving the AMD part would rely on specifications alone.

For users prioritizing thread count and cache capacity, the Intel part offers 10 cores and 16 threads against the AMD part's 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel part also carries 20 MB of shared L3 cache versus 8 MB on the AMD side. These differences suggest the i5-14400T should handle heavily threaded workloads with more headroom, though no benchmark confirms this directly.

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440GE counters with a higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 4.50 GHz on the Intel part, and a smaller process node at 4 nm versus 10 nm. The AMD part also supports PCIe Gen 4 with 12 lanes, while the Intel part supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes. Users who value newer process technology and higher boost frequencies might consider the AMD part, but the absence of measured scores means that consideration rests on paper specifications.

The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $221. The AMD part has no launch MSRP recorded. Both processors carry a 35 W TDP, making them comparable in power envelope. Both are locked multipliers, meaning neither supports overclocking. Both support ECC memory.

The verdict from the data: the Intel Core i5-14400T is the choice for anyone who wants a processor with verified benchmark results and a higher percentile ranking. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440GE remains an unproven quantity in this database, and its selection would depend on factors outside the recorded measurements.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400T has an average benchmark score of 27166, while the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440GE has an average benchmark score of 0, as no benchmark results are recorded for it.

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-14400T compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The i5-14400T averages 27166, which is 0.3% higher than the Intel Core i9-9900K (27097) and 0.4% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 5700G (27051). It trails the Intel Core i7-13700H (27355) by 0.7% and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355G (27382) by 0.8%.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference between the two processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440GE has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core i5-14400T has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440GE boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-14400T boosts to 4.50 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440GE and the Intel Core i5-14400T support ECC memory.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440GE uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core i5-14400T uses a 10 nm process from Intel.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440GE uses 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core i5-14400T uses 10 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ: the AMD part runs at 2.00 GHz, the Intel part at 1.50 GHz. Boost clocks also differ: 4.80 GHz for AMD, 4.50 GHz for Intel. Both share a 35 W TDP.

The AMD part uses AMD Socket AM5, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700. The AMD part has a die size of 195 mm², the Intel part measures 215 mm². Cache configurations diverge: the AMD part has 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, matching the Intel part's L1 per core but trailing the Intel part's 1.25 MB of L2 per core. L3 cache differs substantially: 8 MB on the AMD part versus 20 MB shared on the Intel part.

Memory support separates the two. The AMD part supports only DDR5, while the Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth is listed at 89.6 GB/s for the AMD part, with no bandwidth figure recorded for the Intel part. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

PCIe capabilities differ. The AMD part provides Gen 4 with 12 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: the AMD part uses Radeon 840M, the Intel part uses UHD Graphics 730.

Release dates are far apart. The AMD part launched on 2026-03-01, while the Intel part launched on 2024-01-07. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $221; the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors have locked multipliers. The AMD part carries part number 100-000001922, the Intel part carries SRN3N. The AMD part is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, the Intel part on a 10 nm process at Intel.

The market segment for both is Desktop, and both are listed as Active in production status.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440GE belongs to the Gorgon Point codename and the Ryzen AI PRO 400 generation, which the database lists as Zen 5 / Zen 5c. The Intel Core i5-14400T belongs to the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-R, and the Core i5 generation with the Raptor Lake Refresh label. These are fundamentally different microarchitectures from different vendors.

The AMD part uses a 4 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. The Intel part uses a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. This node difference likely contributes to the AMD part's smaller die size of 195 mm² versus 215 mm² for the Intel part, though neither part has a recorded transistor count.

Cache architecture reflects the core design philosophy of each vendor. The AMD part uses a per-core L1 of 80 KB and a per-core L2 of 1 MB, with a modest 8 MB L3. The Intel part matches the 80 KB per-core L1 but uses a larger 1.25 MB per-core L2 and a significantly larger 20 MB shared L3. The Intel part's larger L3 suggests an advantage in workloads that repeatedly access a working set larger than 8 MB, though no benchmark data confirms this for the AMD part.

The AMD part integrates Radeon 840M graphics, while the Intel part integrates UHD Graphics 730. Neither part has separate graphics benchmark scores in the database, so the relative graphics performance cannot be quantified.

Memory architecture differs in an important way: the AMD part supports only DDR5, while the Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5. This gives the Intel part flexibility for platforms that still use DDR4, while the AMD part is restricted to newer DDR5 platforms. The AMD part lists a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel part has no bandwidth figure recorded.

PCIe architecture also separates the two. The Intel part offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, which provides twice the per-lane bandwidth of Gen 4 and more lanes for expansion. The AMD part offers Gen 4 with 12 lanes. For storage and GPU connectivity, the Intel part's Gen 5 support represents a newer standard, though the AMD part's Gen 4 remains capable for most current peripherals.

The release timing reinforces the architectural gap. The AMD part launched in March 2026, over two years after the Intel part's January 2024 launch. The AMD part therefore represents a newer design generation, which aligns with its smaller process node and newer Zen 5 / Zen 5c core architecture. The Intel part, while based on the older Raptor Lake design, still delivers measured performance within a tight cluster of rivals that include processors from both vendors.

Both parts support ECC memory, both use dual-channel memory buses, and both have locked multipliers. Neither has a vCache 3D option listed, and neither has a recorded transistor count. The database records no benchmark scores for the AMD part, so any architectural advantages the newer design might offer remain unverified in this comparison.