Intel Core i5-14400 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i5-14400 has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How do their single-threaded Cinebench scores compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H wins in Cinebench R23 single-core with 3387 points versus 3009 points for the Intel Core i5-14400, a margin of 11.2%.

Q: Which chip offers the better result in integer math workloads?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400 dominates integer math with a PassMark score of 82017, which is 32.1% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H’s 62070.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H does not.

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

A: The Intel Core i5-14400 uses a 10 nm node, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H uses a 3 nm node.

Q: Which chip has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400 has 20 MB of shared L3 cache, whereas the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H is the clear winner in most multi-threaded and single-threaded rendering tasks. It takes all six Cinebench comparisons (R15, R20, and R23, both multicore and singlecore) with a consistent 11.2% lead in each test. The same chip also wins PassMark multithread by 12.1% (28545 vs 25080) and PassMark single-thread by 6.8% (4013 vs 3741). In encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, physics, and random string sorting, the Ultra 5 336H also holds the advantage. Its largest single win is in find prime numbers, where it scores 299 versus 80, a 73.2% gap.

The Intel Core i5-14400 wins only two head-to-head tests, but both are substantial. Data compression goes to the i5-14400 with 314995 versus 280340, a 12.4% advantage. Integer math is an even bigger win: 82017 versus 62070, a 32.1% margin. These two wins suggest the desktop chip retains an edge in specific computational patterns that favor its architecture and memory configuration.

For general productivity and rendering, the Ultra 5 336H is the stronger choice. For applications that rely heavily on integer arithmetic or data compression routines, the i5-14400 holds a meaningful advantage. The database shows the Ultra 5 336H wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i5-14400 belongs to the Core 14th Gen series and uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-R, built on a 10 nm process by Intel. Its die size is 215 mm². The chip targets the desktop market and fits Intel Socket 1700. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H uses the Panther Lake architecture, codename Panther Lake, built on a 3 nm process, also by Intel. It targets the mobile market and uses Intel BGA 2540. No die size is recorded for the Ultra 5 336H.

Cache organization differs between the two. The i5-14400 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 336H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The mobile chip allocates more cache per core, while the desktop chip has a larger shared L3 pool.

Memory support also separates the two. The i5-14400 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Ultra 5 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in dual-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The i5-14400 supports ECC memory; the Ultra 5 336H does not.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The i5-14400 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Ultra 5 336H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics differ: the i5-14400 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 5 336H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The i5-14400 has 10 cores and 16 threads; the Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clock is 2.50 GHz for the i5-14400 versus 1.90 GHz for the Ultra 5 336H. Boost clock is 4.70 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. TDP is 65 W for the desktop part and 25 W for the mobile part.

Socket and market segment differ: the i5-14400 uses Intel Socket 1700 and is a desktop chip, while the Ultra 5 336H uses Intel BGA 2540 and is a mobile chip. The process node is 10 nm for the i5-14400 and 3 nm for the Ultra 5 336H. Cache per core is larger on the Ultra 5 336H (192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2) versus the i5-14400 (80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2), but shared L3 is larger on the i5-14400 (20 MB versus 18 MB).

Memory support differs: the i5-14400 supports DDR4 and DDR5, the Ultra 5 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Ultra 5 336H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s; no bandwidth figure is recorded for the i5-14400. ECC support is present on the i5-14400 only. PCIe lanes differ: 16 lanes for the i5-14400, 12 lanes for the Ultra 5 336H. Integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 730 on the i5-14400 versus Intel Xe3 Graphics on the Ultra 5 336H.

Release dates differ: the i5-14400 launched on 2024-01-07, while the Ultra 5 336H launched on 2026-01-04. The i5-14400 has a recorded launch MSRP of $221; the Ultra 5 336H has no recorded launch MSRP. Both are active production parts, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 2418 versus 2148, an 11.2% advantage. The singlecore R15 result is 341 versus 303, also 11.1% ahead. R20 multicore is 10076 versus 8952, an 11.2% lead. R20 singlecore is 1422 versus 1263, again 11.2%. R23 multicore is 23991 versus 21315, an 11.2% lead. R23 singlecore is 3387 versus 3009, an 11.2% lead. The consistency of the delta across every Cinebench test indicates a stable architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark multithread confirms the pattern: 28545 for the Ultra 5 336H versus 25080 for the i5-14400, a 12.1% win. PassMark single-thread is 4013 versus 3741, a 6.8% win. Physics is a much larger gap: 2682 versus 1396, a 47.9% lead for the Ultra 5 336H. Floating point math shows 82415 versus 61549, a 25.3% win. Extended instructions go 24542 versus 19816, a 19.3% win. Data encryption is 21291 versus 16731, a 21.4% win. Random string sorting is 34402 versus 32346, a 6% win. The find prime numbers test is the largest disparity: 299 versus 80, a 73.2% lead for the Ultra 5 336H.

The Intel Core i5-14400 takes two tests. Data compression yields 314995 versus 280340, a 12.4% win. Integer math is the standout: 82017 versus 62070, a 32.1% win. These results indicate the desktop processor retains a strong advantage in integer-heavy and compression-heavy workloads, despite losing most other tests. The overall benchmark average tells the same story: the Ultra 5 336H averages 34485 versus 32115 for the i5-14400, placing it at the 84th percentile versus the 82nd percentile for the i5-14400.

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H is the stronger processor in the majority of recorded benchmarks. It wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, including every Cinebench workload, PassMark multithread, single-thread, physics, floating point math, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, and random string sorting. Its 3 nm node, 16 cores, larger per-core cache, and higher average benchmark score of 34485 (84th percentile) all point to a chip that handles modern rendering and general compute tasks more efficiently than the i5-14400.

The Intel Core i5-14400 should be chosen when the workload is specifically integer math or data compression. Its integer math score of 82017 is 32.1% ahead of the Ultra 5 336H, and its data compression score of 314995 is 12.4% ahead. The i5-14400 also offers ECC memory support, which the Ultra 5 336H lacks, and supports DDR4 memory in addition to DDR5, giving it broader memory compatibility. Its 65 W TDP and Socket 1700 make it a desktop part, while the Ultra 5 336H is a 25 W mobile part on BGA 2540.

For a desktop build where rendering, multitasking, and general throughput matter most, the data favors the Ultra 5 336H. For a system that prioritizes integer workloads, compression tasks, or ECC memory, the i5-14400 is the better fit. The recorded data does not support a single universal winner; it supports two different tools for two different jobs.