Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core i5-14400F Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a complete sweep: the Intel Core 9 273PQE wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core i5-14400F. The Core 9 273PQE sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core i5-14400F lands at the 83rd percentile. The average benchmark score of 66099 for the Core 9 273PQE places it within 0.1% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, while the Core i5-14400F's 32279 average score is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U.

The Core 9 273PQE is the selection for workloads that stress both single-thread and multi-thread performance. Its smallest margin of victory, 23.6% in PassMark single-thread tests, still represents a substantial lead. The Core i5-14400F remains a functional desktop processor, but the benchmark results indicate it trails by roughly 81% in Cinebench multi-core tests and by over 100% in several PassMark math workloads. The data does not show any benchmark category where the Core i5-14400F closes the gap. The Core 9 273PQE is positioned for high-throughput computing, while the Core i5-14400F serves less demanding desktop scenarios based on its lower core count and clock ceilings.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the Intel Socket 1700 platform, the 10 nm process node, and Intel as the foundry. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, both include ECC memory support, and both provide PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The similarities end there.

The Core 9 273PQE, codenamed Bartlett Lake, delivers 12 cores and 24 threads with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.90 GHz. The Core i5-14400F, codenamed Raptor Lake-R under the Raptor Lake architecture, provides 10 cores and 16 threads with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The Core 9 273PQE carries a 125 W TDP, while the Core i5-14400F is rated at 65 W.

Cache configurations differ significantly. Both allocate 80 KB of L1 cache per core, but the Core 9 273PQE has 2 MB of L2 cache per core and 36 MB of shared L3 cache, whereas the Core i5-14400F has 1.25 MB of L2 per core and 20 MB of shared L3. The Core 9 273PQE also reports a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s; the Core i5-14400F has no recorded memory bandwidth figure in the database.

The Core 9 273PQE includes integrated UHD Graphics 770, while the Core i5-14400F has no integrated graphics (N/A). The Core 9 273PQE has a die size not recorded in the database, but the Core i5-14400F measures 215 mm². Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 9 273PQE launched on 2026-03-08 with a launch MSRP of $589. The Core i5-14400F launched on 2024-01-07 with a launch MSRP of $196.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head results show the Core 9 273PQE winning every recorded benchmark, so the analysis splits by margin size rather than by victor.

The Core 9 273PQE shows its largest advantages in PassMark extended instructions (94.3% ahead), floating point math (104.7% ahead), integer math (101.9% ahead), and prime number finding (130.2% ahead). These results indicate the Core 9 273PQE is particularly strong in compute-heavy scientific and financial workloads that rely on dense arithmetic and instruction-level parallelism.

The Core 9 273PQE also leads decisively in rendering and content creation. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 39190 against 21645, an 81.1% margin. Cinebench R20 multi-core and R15 multi-core both show exactly 81.1% deltas as well, with scores of 16459 versus 9090 and 3950 versus 2181 respectively. The Cinebench single-core tests mirror that 81.1% delta pattern, with the Core 9 273PQE scoring 5532 versus 3055 in R23 single-core.

The Core i5-14400F's closest relative performance comes in PassMark single-thread tests, where the Core 9 273PQE leads by only 23.6% (4573 versus 3701). The random string sorting test shows a 62.7% delta, which is the second smallest margin for the Core 9 273PQE. These smaller gaps suggest the Core i5-14400F is comparatively less disadvantaged in sequential, lightly threaded operations, though it still loses every such test.

The data shows the Core 9 273PQE excels in parallel throughput workloads. PassMark multithread records 46107 versus 25470, an 81% delta. Data compression shows 585752 versus 315521, an 85.6% delta, and data encryption shows 29636 versus 16949, a 74.9% delta. Physics simulation in PassMark shows 2754 versus 1523, an 80.8% delta. The Core i5-14400F has no recorded benchmark win in any category, so there is no use case in the database where it outperforms the Core 9 273PQE.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core i5-14400F has 10 cores and 16 threads.

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

A: The Core 9 273PQE leads by 23.6% in PassMark single-thread (4573 versus 3701). In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core 9 273PQE scores 5532 against 3055, an 81.1% delta.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, and both support ECC memory. The Core 9 273PQE records a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Core i5-14400F has no bandwidth figure in the database.

Q: Do these processors have integrated graphics?

A: The Core 9 273PQE includes UHD Graphics 770. The Core i5-14400F has no integrated graphics (N/A).

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has an average benchmark score of 66099, which is 0.1% below the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus and 0.3% above the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D. The Core i5-14400F averages 32279, which is 0.1% above the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U and 0.2% above the Intel Core i9-11900.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between these two processors?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 198 against 86, a 130.2% delta.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core 9 273PQE scores 3950 against 2181, an 81.1% delta. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 557 versus 307, also 81.1%. Cinebench R20 multi-core records 16459 versus 9090, and R20 single-core records 2323 versus 1283, both at 81.1%. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 39190 versus 21645, and R23 single-core shows 5532 versus 3055, again both at 81.1%. The uniformity of the 81.1% delta across all six Cinebench tests indicates the Core 9 273PQE's advantage scales evenly across both single and multi-threaded rendering loads.

The PassMark suite reveals where the gap widens. Data compression shows 585752 versus 315521, an 85.6% delta. Data encryption shows 29636 versus 16949, a 74.9% delta. Extended instructions record 38743 versus 19937, a 94.3% delta. Prime number finding shows the largest spread: 198 versus 86, a 130.2% delta. Floating point math hits 125546 versus 61319, a 104.7% delta. Integer math reaches 164629 versus 81524, a 101.9% delta. Multithread shows 46107 versus 25470, an 81% delta. Physics records 2754 versus 1523, an 80.8% delta. Random string sorting shows 53167 versus 32680, a 62.7% delta.

The single-thread PassMark results provide the only sub-50% margin. The Core 9 273PQE scores 4573 against 3701, a 23.6% delta, recorded identically in both passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread entries. This indicates the Core 9 273PQE's clock advantage, 5.90 GHz versus 4.70 GHz boost, does translate to single-thread superiority, but the relative gap is smaller than in multi-threaded workloads where the additional 2 cores, 8 threads, and larger 36 MB L3 cache come into play.

The nearest rival data places these results in context. The Core 9 273PQE's average score of 66099 sits between the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus at 66159 (0.1% higher) and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 65914 (0.3% lower). The Core i5-14400F's average of 32279 sits between the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U at 32233 (0.1% lower) and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS at 32354 (0.2% higher). The Core 9 273PQE's percentile rank of 93 versus the Core i5-14400F's rank of 83 reflects the 17-0 head-to-head sweep and the roughly 2x average benchmark score difference. The data does not contain any recorded workload where the Core i5-14400F takes the lead.