Intel Core 5 330 vs Intel Core i5-14400F Comparison

The Intel Core 5 330 and Intel Core i5-14400F occupy different segments of the processor market, yet both are active Intel products. The Core 5 330 is a mobile-focused part built on a 3 nm process with 6 cores and 6 threads, while the i5-14400F is a desktop chip using a 10 nm node with 10 cores and 16 threads. The database records an average benchmark score of 18345 for the Core 5 330 and 32279 for the i5-14400F, placing the i5-14400F in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs compared to the 72nd percentile for the Core 5 330. These figures establish a clear performance hierarchy, but the specific workloads where each chip leads reveal a more nuanced picture.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread score in PassMark?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 records a PassMark single-thread score of 4088, while the Intel Core i5-14400F scores 3701. This gives the Core 5 330 a 10.5% advantage in that specific test.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The i5-14400F scores 21645 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Core 5 330 scores 13150. The i5-14400F leads by 39.2% in this benchmark.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The i5-14400F has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus. The i5-14400F supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: Which chip includes integrated graphics?

A: The Core 5 330 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The i5-14400F has no integrated graphics (N/A).

Q: What is the socket difference between the two?

A: The Core 5 330 uses Intel BGA 1516, which is a soldered mobile socket. The i5-14400F uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the Intel Core i5-14400F as the stronger overall performer. Its average benchmark score of 32279 is 75.9% higher than the Core 5 330's 18345, and it wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The i5-14400F also holds a higher percentile rank (83rd versus 72nd), confirming that its performance sits above the Core 5 330 in the broader CPU landscape. For workloads that depend on parallel processing, multithreaded throughput, or sustained multicore execution, the i5-14400F is the clear choice based on the numbers.

The Core 5 330 wins only 3 head-to-head tests, but those wins are concentrated in specific areas. It leads in PassMark single-thread (4088 versus 3701, a 10.5% advantage), PassMark find prime numbers (114 versus 86, a 32.6% advantage), and the same single-thread test repeated under a slightly different label. The chip's lower power envelope (15 W TDP versus 65 W TDP) and integrated graphics make it suited for mobile or compact systems where energy efficiency and on-chip display output matter more than raw computation. The database also shows the Core 5 330 has a launch MSRP of $309, while the i5-14400F has a launch MSRP of $196; the price difference is notable but not the primary factor in the performance analysis.

Users who prioritize maximum compute throughput, especially in rendering, compilation, or data-heavy tasks, should select the i5-14400F. Users who need a processor with integrated graphics, a smaller thermal footprint, and a single-thread speed advantage should consider the Core 5 330.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a dominant pattern: the i5-14400F wins 14 of 17 tests, and most of its victories involve substantial margins. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i5-14400F scores 2181 against 1325 for the Core 5 330, a 39.2% gap. The same relative difference appears in Cinebench R20 multicore (9090 versus 5523, a 39.2% gap) and Cinebench R23 multicore (21645 versus 13150, a 39.2% gap). These consistent margins indicate that the i5-14400F's additional cores and threads translate directly into higher multicore throughput across rendering workloads.

Single-core Cinebench results follow the same trend. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the i5-14400F scores 307 versus 186 (a 39.4% advantage). Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1283 versus 779 (a 39.3% advantage), and Cinebench R23 single-core shows 3055 versus 1856 (a 39.2% advantage). The i5-14400F's higher boost clock of 4.70 GHz compared to 4.60 GHz for the Core 5 330 likely contributes to this consistent edge, though the data does not specify the exact cause.

PassMark integer math delivers the largest single-test margin. The i5-14400F scores 81524, while the Core 5 330 scores 33258, a 59.2% advantage for the i5-14400F. Data compression also shows a major gap: 315521 for the i5-14400F versus 145287 for the Core 5 330, a 54% difference. Random string sorting goes to the i5-14400F with 32680 against 17771, a 45.6% margin. These results indicate that the i5-14400F handles integer-heavy and memory-intensive operations far more efficiently.

The Core 5 330's wins are narrower in scope but still meaningful. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4088 beats the i5-14400F's 3701 by 10.5%. In PassMark find prime numbers, the Core 5 330 scores 114 versus 86, a 32.6% advantage. These two tests suggest the Core 5 330's architecture, potentially the newer 3 nm node or the Wildcat Lake design, provides a per-thread advantage in specific algorithmic patterns.

Other PassMark results favor the i5-14400F with varying margins. Floating point math shows 61319 versus 43885 (a 28.4% advantage), data encryption shows 16949 versus 11076 (a 34.7% advantage), extended instructions show 19937 versus 12808 (a 35.8% advantage), multithread shows 25470 versus 15471 (a 39.3% advantage), physics shows 1523 versus 1201 (a 21.1% advantage), and data compression shows 315521 versus 145287 (a 54% advantage). The i5-14400F also wins the PassMark single-thread test that appears under the alternative label, scoring 3701 against 4088, but that is the same measurement already noted.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge in nearly every physical and platform specification. The Core 5 330 uses 6 cores and 6 threads, while the i5-14400F uses 10 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ: the Core 5 330 operates at 1.50 GHz, and the i5-14400F operates at 2.50 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, with the Core 5 330 reaching 4.60 GHz and the i5-14400F reaching 4.70 GHz. Thermal design power (TDP) shows a major gap: 15 W for the Core 5 330 versus 65 W for the i5-14400F.

Socket compatibility separates the two completely. The Core 5 330 uses Intel BGA 1516, a ball-grid array for soldered mobile installation. The i5-14400F uses Intel Socket 1700, a land-grid array for desktop motherboards. The market segments reflect this: the Core 5 330 is classified as mobile, and the i5-14400F is classified as desktop.

Memory support differs in both type and channel configuration. The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus, achieving a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The i5-14400F supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus; the database does not record a bandwidth figure for it. ECC memory support also differs: the i5-14400F supports ECC, while the Core 5 330 does not.

PCIe capabilities show a generational split. The Core 5 330 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The i5-14400F provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). This gives the i5-14400F both a newer PCIe standard and more available lanes for expansion.

Integrated graphics are present only on the Core 5 330, which includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The i5-14400F has no integrated graphics, as indicated by the N/A designation. The Core 5 330 also has a smaller cache footprint: 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The i5-14400F lists per-core cache values of 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2, with 20 MB shared L3. The die size for the i5-14400F is recorded as 215 mm²; no die size is recorded for the Core 5 330.

Architecture Differences

The underlying designs are distinct. The Core 5 330 belongs to the Wildcat Lake family, part of the Core 5 generation, and is built on a 3 nm process node. The i5-14400F belongs to the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake Refresh generation, and uses a 10 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the process node difference indicates a newer fabrication technology for the Core 5 330.

The cache hierarchy reflects different design philosophies. The Core 5 330 uses a shared L3 cache of 6 MB, which is small for a modern processor but consistent with a low-power mobile design. The i5-14400F uses a 20 MB shared L3 cache, more than three times larger, which supports its higher core count and desktop performance targets. L1 and L2 caches are reported in different formats: the Core 5 330 lists total L1 as 192 KB and total L2 as 2.5 MB, while the i5-14400F lists per-core values of 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2.

Memory architecture also differs at the controller level. The Core 5 330 uses a single-channel memory bus, which limits its bandwidth to 59.7 GB/s. The i5-14400F uses a dual-channel bus, providing potentially higher bandwidth, though the database does not record a specific figure. The Core 5 330's support for LPDDR5X suggests a design aimed at mobile power efficiency, while the i5-14400F's dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 support targets desktop flexibility.

The i5-14400F includes ECC memory support, a feature absent from the Core 5 330. This makes the i5-14400F more suitable for error-sensitive workloads such as data integrity applications. The PCIe lanes also differ: the Core 5 330 offers 6 Gen 4 lanes, while the i5-14400F offers 16 Gen 5 lanes, making the i5-14400F more capable for high-bandwidth peripherals like modern GPUs or NVMe storage.

Where Each One Wins

The i5-14400F dominates in almost every multithreaded and throughput-oriented benchmark. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests all show the i5-14400F ahead by 39.2% or more. PassMark multithread shows a 39.3% advantage. Integer math, data compression, random string sorting, and extended instructions all favor the i5-14400F by margins ranging from 35.8% to 59.2%. These results make the i5-14400F the appropriate choice for video rendering, 3D modeling, software compilation, database processing, and any workload that scales with core count and memory bandwidth.

The i5-14400F also wins in floating point math (61319 versus 43885, a 28.4% advantage) and physics simulation (1523 versus 1201, a 21.1% advantage), extending its lead into scientific and simulation tasks. Data encryption shows a 34.7% advantage, indicating better cryptographic throughput. The i5-14400F's higher base clock (2.50 GHz versus 1.50 GHz) and larger L3 cache (20 MB versus 6 MB) support these wins across diverse test types.

The Core 5 330 wins in three areas, all centered on single-thread or specialized integer operations. PassMark single-thread shows a 10.5% advantage (4088 versus 3701), and PassMark find prime numbers shows a 32.6% advantage (114 versus 86). The find prime numbers test likely benefits from the Core 5 330's newer 3 nm node or its specific instruction handling, though the database does not specify the mechanism. The Core 5 330's integrated graphics provide a functional advantage for systems that need display output without a discrete GPU, and its 15 W TDP suits fanless or low-power mobile designs.

For mobile computing, the Core 5 330's BGA 1516 socket and single-channel memory reflect a compact, power-conscious platform. The i5-14400F's Socket 1700 and dual-channel memory require a larger desktop board but deliver substantially higher performance. The data also shows the Core 5 330's launch MSRP of $309 versus the i5-14400F's $196, but the performance gap of 75.9% in average benchmark score makes the i5-14400F the stronger choice for raw compute.

The Core 5 330's single-thread win in PassMark does not carry over to Cinebench single-core tests, where the i5-14400F leads by 39.2% to 39.4%. This inconsistency suggests the PassMark single-thread test measures a different workload profile, possibly one that favors the Core 5 330's specific cache or branch prediction behavior. The find prime numbers win shows a similar pattern, indicating that the Core 5 330 excels in narrow, algorithm-specific scenarios rather than general-purpose single-thread performance.

Overall, the i5-14400F is the benchmark leader in 14 of 17 tests, with an average score advantage of 75.9%. The Core 5 330's 3 wins are real but limited to specialized single-thread or prime-number calculations. The recorded data does not support any scenario where the Core 5 330 outperforms the i5-14400F in multithreaded, memory-heavy, or rendering workloads. The i5-14400F also offers ECC memory support and PCIe Gen 5, features that the Core 5 330 lacks entirely.