Intel Core 7 240H vs Intel Core i5-14400F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a clear split between these two 10-core, 16-thread processors. The Intel Core i5-14400F claims 12 of the 17 head-to-head wins, while the Intel Core 7 240H takes 5. The margins, however, tell a more nuanced story than the win count alone.

The single most decisive result is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the i5-14400F scores 3055 against the Core 7 240H's 1719. That is a 77.7% advantage, the largest delta in the entire comparison. The gap is nearly as stark in Cinebench R15 single-core, with the i5-14400F posting 307 versus 249, a 23.3% lead. These are not marginal differences; they indicate a fundamentally different single-thread performance profile between the two parts.

Multi-threaded rendering tells a split story depending on the benchmark version. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i5-14400F is emphatically ahead: 21645 against 15764, a 37.3% advantage. But in Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core 7 240H wins with 2360 over 2181, a 7.6% edge. The middle ground is Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the i5-14400F scores 9090 versus 8562, a 6.2% win. This pattern suggests the mobile chip's advantage in the older R15 workload does not carry into the more demanding R23 render.

Single-core results beyond Cinebench are close. In Passmark single-thread, the Core 7 240H edges out the i5-14400F with 3782 against 3701, a 2.1% margin. The same 2.1% delta appears in the duplicate singlethread listing. This is the only conventional CPU benchmark where the mobile part leads by a meaningful, if small, amount.

The Passmark suite contributes several additional wins for the i5-14400F. Data compression goes to the desktop chip at 315521 versus 271774, a 16.1% margin. Data encryption follows at 16949 versus 15155, an 11.8% lead. Extended instructions show an 18% advantage with 19937 against 16897. Random string sorting is 13.2% ahead at 32680 versus 28866. Floating point math is closer, 61319 versus 58905, a 4.1% lead. Integer math is nearly a tie, 81524 versus 80396, just 1.4% apart.

The Core 7 240H, for its part, wins Passmark physics with 1723 versus 1523, an 11.6% margin. It also wins Passmark find prime numbers at 102 versus 86, a 15.7% lead. These two results, combined with the R15 multi-core and the single-thread Passmark wins, show the mobile chip is not without strengths in specific workloads.

Overall average benchmark scores put the i5-14400F at 32279 and the Core 7 240H at 31483. The desktop part sits at the 83rd percentile among all CPUs, while the mobile chip sits at the 82nd percentile. The nearest rivals for the i5-14400F include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U at 32233 (0.1% behind) and the Intel Core i9-11900 at 32226 (0.2% behind). The Core 7 240H's closest competitor is the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 at 31473, a 0% delta, and the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX at 31495, also 0%.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the Intel Core i5-14400F is the stronger processor for most workloads. Its 37.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core is the single largest multi-threaded margin in the comparison, and its 77.7% advantage in Cinebench R23 single-core is decisive for any application that depends on per-thread speed. The desktop chip also wins the majority of Passmark productivity tests, including data compression, encryption, and extended instructions, with margins between 11.8% and 18%.

The Intel Core 7 240H is the better choice only in specific scenarios. Its Passmark physics score of 1723 beats the i5-14400F by 11.6%, and its find prime numbers result of 102 beats 86 by 15.7%. It also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 7.6% and Passmark single-thread by 2.1%. These wins point toward older legacy renders and certain math-heavy integer workloads, but they do not offset the broader pattern.

For a user prioritizing modern multi-core rendering, the i5-14400F is the clear pick. For a user whose workload is dominated by physics simulation or prime number computation, the Core 7 240H has a measurable edge. The 83rd versus 82nd percentile ranking shows both chips sit near each other in the overall CPU landscape, but the i5-14400F's average benchmark score of 32279 versus 31483 reflects its wider lead across the test suite.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Raptor Lake architecture and the 10 nm process node from Intel. The i5-14400F is part of the Core 14th Gen desktop lineup, using the Raptor Lake-R codename and generation label "Core i5 (Raptor Lake Refresh)". The Core 7 240H is a mobile part using the Raptor Lake-H codename with the generation label "Core 7 (Raptor Lake Refresh)".

Core counts are identical: 10 cores and 16 threads on both. Base clocks match at 2.50 GHz. The boost clocks differ, with the i5-14400F reaching 4.70 GHz and the Core 7 240H reaching 5.20 GHz. The higher boost clock on the mobile chip, despite its lower TDP, is notable.

Cache configurations diverge. The L1 cache is the same at 80 KB per core. The L2 cache differs: the i5-14400F has 1.25 MB per core, while the Core 7 240H has 2 MB per core. The L3 cache also differs, with the i5-14400F carrying 20 MB shared and the Core 7 240H carrying 24 MB shared. The mobile chip therefore holds more total cache at every level above L1.

TDP ratings separate the two clearly. The i5-14400F is rated at 65 W, while the Core 7 240H is rated at 45 W. The desktop chip uses Intel Socket 1700, while the mobile chip uses Intel BGA 1744. The market segments reflect this: the i5-14400F is a Desktop part, the Core 7 240H is Mobile.

Memory support is the same on paper: both support DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode. ECC memory support differs, with the i5-14400F supporting ECC and the Core 7 240H not. PCIe lanes also differ: the i5-14400F provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 7 240H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes from the CPU.

Integrated graphics separate the two. The i5-14400F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A. The Core 7 240H includes Iris Xe Graphics 64EU. This is a meaningful distinction for a mobile platform where a discrete GPU may not always be present.

Release dates differ by nearly a year. The i5-14400F launched on 2024-01-07, while the Core 7 240H launched on 2024-12-17. Both are listed as Active in production status. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The i5-14400F has a die size of 215 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Core 7 240H.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-14400F boosts to 4.70 GHz.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400F scores 21645, which is 37.3% higher than the Intel Core 7 240H's 15764.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 240H have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Iris Xe Graphics 64EU. The Intel Core i5-14400F has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the cache difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H has 2 MB L2 per core and 24 MB shared L3. The Intel Core i5-14400F has 1.25 MB L2 per core and 20 MB shared L3.

Q: Which chip wins in Passmark physics?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H scores 1723, an 11.6% advantage over the Intel Core i5-14400F's 1523.

Q: Do both chips support DDR5 memory?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configuration.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400F is rated at 65 W, while the Intel Core 7 240H is rated at 45 W.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-14400F dominates in modern multi-core rendering. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21645 is 37.3% ahead of the Core 7 240H, and its Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 9090 is 6.2% ahead. Content creators running current render engines will see a substantial advantage with the desktop chip.

The i5-14400F also wins in data-heavy productivity tasks. Passmark data compression at 315521 beats the Core 7 240H by 16.1%, and data encryption at 16949 beats it by 11.8%. Extended instruction workloads show an 18% lead, and random string sorting shows a 13.2% lead. These are the sorts of tasks found in archiving, database operations, and cryptographic workloads.

Single-core performance in Cinebench strongly favors the i5-14400F. The R23 single-core score of 3055 is 77.7% ahead, and the R15 single-core score of 307 is 23.3% ahead. Applications that rely on high per-thread throughput, such as older games or lightly threaded productivity tools, will prefer the desktop part.

The Intel Core 7 240H wins in physics simulation. Its Passmark physics score of 1723 is 11.6% higher than the i5-14400F's 1523. This suggests an advantage in physics-based game logic or simulation workloads that leverage that specific measurement.

The mobile chip also wins in prime number finding, scoring 102 against 86, a 15.7% margin. This points to certain integer-heavy algorithmic workloads performing better on the Core 7 240H. Its Passmark single-thread score of 3782 also edges out the i5-14400F's 3701 by 2.1%, giving it a narrow win in general single-threaded Passmark performance.

Cinebench R15 multi-core is another win for the Core 7 240H, with 2360 against 2181, a 7.6% margin. Users running legacy render workloads based on R15 may see faster times on the mobile chip. The 45 W TDP and higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz suggest the Core 7 240H can deliver competitive results in bursty workloads despite its lower power envelope.

For system builders, the i5-14400F offers ECC memory support and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, making it suitable for workstation-style builds that require error-correcting memory and high-bandwidth expansion. The Core 7 240H offers integrated graphics and 8 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, fitting a mobile or compact platform where a discrete GPU is optional.