Intel Core i5-14400 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data positions the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H as the stronger processor across every recorded test. Of the 17 head-to-head measurements, the Core Ultra 7 366H wins all 17, with no benchmark favoring the Intel Core i5-14400. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 7 366H is 41263, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core i5-14400 averages 32115 and sits in the 82nd percentile. The nearest rival to the Core i5-14400 is the Intel Core i7-12800H with an average score of 32121, a delta of 0%, while the Core Ultra 7 366H's closest competitor is the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H at 41215, just 0.1% behind.

The Core i5-14400 is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP, Intel Socket 1700, and a launch MSRP of $221. The Core Ultra 7 366H is a mobile processor with a 25 W TDP and BGA 2540 socket. The desktop chip uses DDR4 or DDR5 memory, while the mobile chip supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The data indicates the Core Ultra 7 366H is for systems where higher multi-threaded and single-threaded throughput is required, while the Core i5-14400 is a desktop option with a lower absolute benchmark ceiling but a conventional socket and a stated launch price.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 4020 in Cinebench R23 single-core, versus 3009 for the Intel Core i5-14400, a 25.1% difference.

Q: How do the two chips compare in data encryption performance?

A: The Core Ultra 7 366H records 25845 in PassMark data encryption, while the Core i5-14400 scores 16731, a 35.3% gap in favor of the mobile chip.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each processor?

A: The Core i5-14400 has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Core i5-14400 has 20 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What are the process nodes for these two chips?

A: The Core i5-14400 is built on a 10 nm process, and the Core Ultra 7 366H uses a 3 nm process.

Q: Do both processors support error-correcting memory?

A: No, the Core i5-14400 supports ECC memory, but the Core Ultra 7 366H does not.

Q: What is the boost clock for each processor?

A: The Core i5-14400 boosts to 4.70 GHz, and the Core Ultra 7 366H boosts to 4.80 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core i5-14400 uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-R, and belongs to the Core 14th Gen series. Its codename is Raptor Lake-R, and its generation is listed as Core i5 (Raptor Lake Refresh). The Core Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture, also codenamed Panther Lake, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, with a generation of Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H).

The process technology differs substantially. The Core i5-14400 uses a 10 nm node, while the Core Ultra 7 366H uses a 3 nm node. Both are fabricated by Intel. The die size for the Core i5-14400 is 215 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Core Ultra 7 366H.

Cache organization differs in both size and structure. The Core i5-14400 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, with 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, with 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core cache is larger on the mobile chip, but the total shared L3 is smaller.

The integrated graphics also differ. The Core i5-14400 includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 7 366H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. PCIe support is similar in generation but different in lane count: the Core i5-14400 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), and the Core Ultra 7 366H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only).

The market segments are different. The Core i5-14400 is a desktop processor, and the Core Ultra 7 366H is a mobile processor. The production status for both is Active. The Core i5-14400 was released on 2024-01-07, and the Core Ultra 7 366H was released later, on 2026-01-04.

Specification Differences

The core counts differ. The Core i5-14400 has 10 cores, and the Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores. Both have 16 threads, so the desktop part relies on hyper-threading to reach 16 threads from 10 cores, while the mobile part has one thread per core.

Base clock speeds differ. The Core i5-14400 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz, and the Core Ultra 7 366H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz. Boost clocks are closer: 4.70 GHz for the desktop chip and 4.80 GHz for the mobile chip.

TDP is a major separator. The Core i5-14400 is rated at 65 W, while the Core Ultra 7 366H is rated at 25 W. The socket types are entirely different: Intel Socket 1700 for the desktop part and Intel BGA 2540 for the mobile part.

Memory support differs. The Core i5-14400 supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The Core Ultra 7 366H records a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while no memory bandwidth figure is recorded for the Core i5-14400. ECC memory support is present on the Core i5-14400 but absent on the Core Ultra 7 366H.

The Core i5-14400 has a launch MSRP of $221, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Core Ultra 7 366H. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers also differ: SRN3QSRN46 for the Core i5-14400 and SA4R9Q9EL for the Core Ultra 7 366H.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 7 366H dominates the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 2870 against 2148 for the Core i5-14400, a 25.2% advantage. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 405 against 303, also 25.2% ahead. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20: multi-core is 11960 versus 8952, and single-core is 1688 versus 1263, both 25.2% differences. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score is 28477 versus 21315, a 25.2% gap, and the single-core score is 4020 versus 3009, a 25.1% gap.

The PassMark results reinforce the pattern, though the margins vary. The largest single gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 7 366H scores 326 and the Core i5-14400 scores 80, a 75.5% difference. Floating point math also shows a large gap: 103615 versus 61549, a 40.6% difference. Physics is another big separator: 2880 versus 1396, a 51.5% difference.

Other PassMark tests show smaller but still consistent leads. Data encryption is 25845 versus 16731, a 35.3% difference. Extended instructions are 26901 versus 19816, a 26.3% difference. Multi-thread is 33429 versus 25080, a 25% difference. Random string sorting is 39814 versus 32346, an 18.8% difference. Single-thread is 4043 versus 3741, a 7.5% difference.

The closest margins are in PassMark integer math and data compression. Integer math shows 83695 versus 82017, only a 2% difference. Data compression is 327455 versus 314995, a 3.8% difference. These two tests are the only ones where the Core i5-14400 comes near the mobile chip's performance, though it still loses both.

The Core i5-14400 has no wins in any recorded test. Its strongest relative performance appears in integer math and data compression, where the Core Ultra 7 366H leads by single-digit percentages. Its weakest relative performance is in find prime numbers, where it trails by more than 75%.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is defined by the size of its margins rather than any outright victory for the desktop chip. The mobile processor is particularly strong in prime number finding, physics, floating point math, and data encryption, where it leads by 40% to 75%. These workloads benefit from its 16 cores and larger per-core caches. The single-thread advantage of 7.5% in PassMark and 25.1% in Cinebench R23 indicates that the Core Ultra 7 366H also has the stronger per-thread performance, despite its lower base clock of 2.00 GHz versus 2.50 GHz for the Core i5-14400.

The Intel Core i5-14400 has no benchmark wins, but its closest showings define where it is least disadvantaged. In PassMark integer math, it trails by only 2%, and in data compression, by 3.8%. These are the workloads where the desktop chip's 10 cores and 16 threads remain competitive with the mobile chip's 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core i5-14400 also has the larger shared L3 cache at 20 MB versus 18 MB, which may contribute to its relatively stronger showing in compression and integer tasks.

The Core i5-14400 offers ECC memory support and DDR4 compatibility, which the mobile chip lacks. It uses a desktop socket, Intel Socket 1700, and has a 65 W TDP. The Core Ultra 7 366H, by contrast, uses a mobile socket, BGA 2540, and has a 25 W TDP. The data shows that for users constrained to a desktop platform with ECC requirements or DDR4 memory, the Core i5-14400 is the only viable option between the two. For all measured performance, the Core Ultra 7 366H is the faster chip.

The 87th percentile ranking for the Core Ultra 7 366H versus the 82nd percentile for the Core i5-14400 confirms the overall positioning. The mobile chip's average benchmark score of 41263 is roughly 28% higher than the desktop chip's 32115. The nearest rival data reinforces this: the Core i5-14400 competes with the Intel Core i7-12800H and Core i7-13705H, while the Core Ultra 7 366H competes with the Core Ultra 7 356H and AMD Ryzen 9 5900X. The Core Ultra 7 366H is in a higher performance tier, and the benchmark results consistently place it ahead of the Core i5-14400 across rendering, encryption, mathematics, and physics workloads.