Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core i9-14900F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unequivocal: the Intel Core i9-14900F wins every single recorded test in the head-to-head comparison. Across 17 benchmark entries, the Core i9-14900F takes all 17 wins, leaving the Intel Core 5 221E with zero victories. This is not a close contest; the performance gulf is consistent and substantial across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads.

The most decisive advantages for the Core i9-14900F appear in data-intensive tasks. In PassMark data encryption, the Core i9-14900F scores 34644 against 19205 for the Core 5 221E, a delta of -44.6%. Data compression shows a similar gap: 564207 versus 324285, a -42.5% difference. Random string sorting also heavily favors the Core i9-14900F, with 63728 against 37686, a -40.9% margin. These are the largest percentage leads in the entire dataset, indicating that the Core i9-14900F is dramatically faster at memory-heavy and cryptographic workloads.

The Cinebench suite tells a consistent story of roughly one-third better performance for the Core i9-14900F. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core i9-14900F scores 39551 versus 25933 for the Core 5 221E, a -34.4% delta. The single-core R23 result shows 5583 versus 3661, also -34.4%. This pattern repeats across Cinebench R15 and R20, with multi-core and single-core deltas all sitting at -34.4% or -34.5%. The consistency of these margins suggests a uniform clock and core-count advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark integer math and floating point math show slightly smaller but still decisive gaps. Integer math scores 177066 for the Core i9-14900F versus 117813, a -33.5% delta. Floating point math records 119550 versus 79028, a -33.9% delta. Extended instructions follow at -41.4%, with scores of 31084 and 18216. The narrowest win for the Core i9-14900F is in PassMark single-thread, where it scores 4506 against 4147, a modest -8% delta. This is the only test where the Core 5 221E comes within single-digit percentage points, indicating that per-core performance is relatively closer than multi-core throughput.

PassMark multi-thread confirms the overall picture: 46532 for the Core i9-14900F versus 30510, a -34.4% delta. Physics tests show a -23.1% gap (2899 versus 2230), while find prime numbers shows a -17.2% difference (209 versus 173). Across the entire benchmark set, the Core i9-14900F maintains a lead that ranges from 8% to over 44%, with the average benchmark score reflecting this: 60008 for the Core i9-14900F versus 40144 for the Core 5 221E.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share several foundational traits but diverge significantly in core configuration and cache allocation. Both use a 10 nm process node from Intel, both sit in the Intel Socket 1700, and both have a die size of 257 mm². Neither has a transistor count listed in the database. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory through a dual-channel bus, and both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is identical: Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The core counts differ sharply. The Core i9-14900F uses 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Core 5 221E uses 14 cores and 20 threads. This is a 10-core and 12-thread advantage for the Core i9-14900F, which directly explains the large multi-threaded benchmark leads. The Core i9-14900F is built on the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-R codename, part of the Core 14th Gen series. The Core 5 221E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, part of the Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) generation.

Clock speeds favor the Core i9-14900F in boost but not in base. The Core i9-14900F has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. The Core 5 221E has a higher base clock of 2.70 GHz but a lower boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The 0.60 GHz boost advantage for the Core i9-14900F contributes to its single-thread wins, despite the Core 5 221E starting from a higher base frequency. Both processors carry a 65 W TDP.

Cache hierarchies are identical per-core but differ in total L3. Both have 80 KB L1 per core and 2 MB L2 per core. The L3 cache is 36 MB shared on the Core i9-14900F versus 24 MB shared on the Core 5 221E. That 12 MB L3 difference is substantial and likely aids the Core i9-14900F in data compression and encryption tests, where larger working sets can stay on-die.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 5 221E includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Core i9-14900F lists integrated graphics as N/A. The Core 5 221E also lists a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, whereas the Core i9-14900F has no memory bandwidth figure recorded. Release dates and launch MSRP values differ: the Core 5 221E launched on 2025-01-12 with a launch MSRP of $232, while the Core i9-14900F launched on 2024-01-07 with a launch MSRP of $524. Part numbers are SRQDVQ659 for the Core 5 221E and SRN3W for the Core i9-14900F.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i9-14900F wins everywhere in the recorded benchmarks, but the magnitude of its wins varies by workload type. The largest advantages come in data encryption and compression, where the deltas exceed 40%. This indicates that the Core i9-14900F is particularly strong for file archiving, database workloads, and any application that shuffles large data blocks through memory. The 36 MB L3 cache and 24-core configuration give it a clear edge in these throughput-heavy tasks.

The Core 5 221E is not without merit in relative terms. Its single-thread deficit is the smallest of any category, at -8% in PassMark single-thread. This means for lightly threaded applications where only one or two cores are active, the Core 5 221E is almost competitive. Its higher base clock of 2.70 GHz likely keeps it close in short bursts of single-core activity. However, even here, the Core i9-14900F wins, so the Core 5 221E does not hold a single recorded advantage.

For multi-threaded rendering and compute tasks, the Core i9-14900F is the clear choice. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 13618-point lead, and the -34.4% delta is consistent across all three Cinebench versions. The Core 5 221E does produce respectable absolute scores, such as 25933 in R23 multi-core and 10891 in R20 multi-core, but these trail the Core i9-14900F by roughly a third in every rendering test.

The Core 5 221E does offer features the Core i9-14900F lacks, namely integrated graphics. For a system that will not use a discrete GPU, the Core 5 221E provides a display output option. The Core i9-14900F requires a separate graphics card. Additionally, the Core 5 221E has a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Core i9-14900F has no such figure, though this does not appear to hurt the Core i9-14900F in actual benchmark results.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900F has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: In PassMark single-thread, the Core i9-14900F scores 4506 versus 4147 for the Core 5 221E, a delta of -8%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap is larger at -34.4%, with scores of 5583 and 3661.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 5 221E and the Intel Core i9-14900F support ECC memory, and both support DDR4 and DDR5 through a dual-channel bus.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core 5 221E includes UHD Graphics 730. The Intel Core i9-14900F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900F has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core 5 221E has 24 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have 80 KB L1 per core and 2 MB L2 per core.

Q: How do the boost clocks compare?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900F boosts to 5.80 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 221E boosts to 5.20 GHz. The Core 5 221E has a higher base clock of 2.70 GHz versus 2.00 GHz for the Core i9-14900F.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the Intel Core i9-14900F is the superior processor in every measured benchmark. With 17 wins out of 17 head-to-head tests, it offers higher performance across rendering, encryption, compression, math, and single-thread tasks. The smallest lead is 8% in PassMark single-thread, and the largest is 44.6% in data encryption. For any workload that benefits from more cores, more cache, or a higher boost clock, the Core i9-14900F is the pick.

The Intel Core 5 221E remains a viable option only in specific circumstances. Its integrated graphics provide a display solution without a discrete GPU, which the Core i9-14900F cannot offer. Its higher base clock of 2.70 GHz may help in brief single-core bursts, though the benchmark data shows it still loses those tests. The Core 5 221E also carries a lower launch MSRP of $232 versus $524 for the Core i9-14900F, though pricing is not a factor in performance analysis.

The percentile rankings confirm the gap. The Core i9-14900F sits in the 92nd percentile versus all CPUs, while the Core 5 221E sits in the 87th percentile. The average benchmark scores are 60008 and 40144 respectively, a difference of approximately 50%. The nearest rivals for each processor are different tiers as well: the Core i9-14900F competes with AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (delta -0.2%) and Ryzen 7 8745HX (delta -0.2%), while the Core 5 221E sits near the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 (delta 0.2%) and Ryzen AI 9 365 (delta 0.2%). This places the Core i9-14900F in a higher performance class entirely.

For users building a desktop system with a discrete GPU and requiring maximum multi-threaded throughput, the Core i9-14900F is the data-backed choice. For a system needing integrated graphics or a lower launch MSRP, the Core 5 221E offers those features, but the benchmark record shows it concedes every performance test to the Core i9-14900F.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 221E | Intel Core i9-14900F |

|---------------|-------------------|----------------------|

| Cores | 14 | 24 |

| Threads | 20 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | 5.80 GHz |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Raptor Lake-R |

| Generation | Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) | Core i9 (Raptor Lake Refresh) |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

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

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | N/A |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2024-01-07 |

| Launch MSRP | $232 | $524 |

| Part Number | SRQDVQ659 | SRN3W |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 87 | 92 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 40144 | 60008 |