Intel Core i5-14400 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every recorded head-to-head test, 17 of 17. The Intel Core i5-14400 does not claim a single victory across Cinebench R15/R20/R23 or the full Passmark suite. This is not a close contest; it is a decisive sweep.

The largest margins appear in heavily parallel workloads. The Ultra 9 285 leads by 82.6% in Passmark find prime numbers, 68.4% in floating point math, and 64.4% in data encryption. These are compute-intensive tasks that scale with core count and instruction throughput. The i5-14400 trails by more than half in all three Cinebench multicore tests, with deltas of 56.5% across R15, R20, and R23.

Single-threaded performance tells a similar but slightly narrower story. The Ultra 9 285 leads by 23.4% in Passmark single-thread and single-threaded (the database reports both as 4881 vs 3741). Cinebench single-core deltas are larger, 56.5% in R15 and R20, 56.4% in R23. The gap shrinks in Passmark because that test emphasizes sustained clock behavior differently, but the direction never changes.

Intermediate workloads show consistent advantages. The Ultra 9 285 leads by 56.3% in extended instructions, 56.1% in random string sorting, 55.7% in multithread, 50.3% in integer math, and 47.7% in data compression. Even the smallest recorded advantage, data compression at 47.7%, represents a near-doubling of throughput. The physics test, often sensitive to memory latency and branch prediction, shows a 61.2% lead for the Ultra 9 285.

For use-case planning, the data indicates that any workload, whether lightly threaded or heavily parallel, will favor the Ultra 9 285. The i5-14400 does have a lower platform cost in terms of launch MSRP, but that is a separate consideration. From pure performance, there is no benchmark category where the i5-14400 offers an advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations. The i5-14400 uses Raptor Lake-R, a refresh of the Raptor Lake design, built on Intel's 10 nm process. The Ultra 9 285 uses Arrow Lake-S, built on TSMC's 3 nm node. This process shrink explains part of the efficiency and clock headroom difference.

Core counts diverge sharply. The i5-14400 has 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating a hybrid configuration with performance and efficiency cores, where the efficiency cores do not add threads. The Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning all cores run one thread each. This is a fundamental design change: more physical cores, no simultaneous multithreading.

Cache hierarchies differ in size and distribution. The i5-14400 has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. For each cache level, the Ultra 9 285 offers more capacity, which helps with data residency in compute-heavy loops.

Memory support differs. The i5-14400 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, dual-channel. The Ultra 9 285 supports only DDR5, dual-channel, with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s recorded in the database. The i5-14400 has no recorded memory bandwidth figure. ECC support is present on both.

The integrated graphics differ. The i5-14400 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Both are desktop segment parts, but the Ultra 9's iGPU is from a more recent architecture.

PCIe lanes differ: the i5-14400 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 9 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Sockets also differ: the i5-14400 uses Intel Socket 1700, the Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851.

Transistor count and die size are recorded only for the Ultra 9 285: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The i5-14400 has a 215 mm² die with no transistor count listed. The foundry differs: Intel for the i5, TSMC for the Ultra 9.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R23 multicore test shows the Ultra 9 285 scoring 48945 against the i5-14400's 21315, a 56.5% lead. That is more than double the output. The R23 single-core test shows 6909 vs 3009, a 56.4% lead. The Ultra 9 285's boost clock of 5.60 GHz against the i5-14400's 4.70 GHz helps explain the single-core advantage, though the architecture and cache also contribute.

In Cinebench R20, the multicore score is 20556 vs 8952, again a 56.5% gap. The single-core score is 2901 vs 1263. Cinebench R15 repeats the pattern: multicore 4933 vs 2148, single-core 696 vs 303. All three Cinebench generations agree on the magnitude of the delta, which strengthens the conclusion that the Ultra 9 285 is consistently faster across rendering workloads.

Passmark data compression shows 602121 vs 314995, a 47.7% lead. This is the smallest delta in the dataset, but still substantial. Data encryption shows 46949 vs 16731, a 64.4% lead. The encryption test often relies on AES-NI and memory bandwidth; the Ultra 9 285's larger L3 and higher bandwidth likely drive this.

Floating point math shows 194988 vs 61549, a 68.4% lead. That is a ratio of over 3:1. Integer math shows 164869 vs 82017, a 50.3% lead. The find prime numbers test shows 459 vs 80, an 82.6% lead, the largest absolute delta in the entire dataset. This test is highly sensitive to core count and memory latency, and the Ultra 9 285 dominates.

Random string sorting shows 73651 vs 32346, a 56.1% lead. Extended instructions show 45357 vs 19816, a 56.3% lead. Multithread shows 56602 vs 25080, a 55.7% lead. Physics shows 3598 vs 1396, a 61.2% lead. Single-thread shows 4881 vs 3741, a 23.4% lead. The single-thread delta is the smallest, yet it still favors the Ultra 9 285 by nearly a quarter.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-14400 win any benchmark against the Ultra 9 285?

A: No. The database records 17 head-to-head tests, and the Ultra 9 285 wins all 17. The i5-14400 has zero wins.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in Passmark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 9 285 leads by 82.6%. The i5-14400 scores 80, the Ultra 9 285 scores 459.

Q: How does single-threaded performance compare?

A: The Ultra 9 285 leads in all single-thread tests. Passmark single-thread shows 4881 vs 3741, a 23.4% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 6909 vs 3009, a 56.4% lead.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes. Both the i5-14400 and the Ultra 9 285 have ECC memory support recorded in the database.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The i5-14400 supports DDR4 and DDR5, dual-channel. The Ultra 9 285 supports only DDR5, dual-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The i5-14400 has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors, based solely on the recorded data.

• Cores: 10 (i5-14400) vs 24 (Ultra 9 285)
• Threads: 16 vs 24
• Boost clock: 4.70 GHz vs 5.60 GHz
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 vs Intel Socket 1851
• Architecture: Raptor Lake vs Arrow Lake
• Codename: Raptor Lake-R vs Arrow Lake-S
• Generation: Core i5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) vs Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake)
• Process node: 10 nm vs 3 nm
• Foundry: Intel vs TSMC
• Transistors: not recorded vs 17,800 million
• Die size: 215 mm² vs 243 mm²
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core vs 192 KB per core
• L2 cache: 1.25 MB per core vs 3 MB per core
• L3 cache: 20 MB shared vs 36 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 vs DDR5
• Memory bandwidth: not recorded vs 102.4 GB/s
• PCIe: Gen 5, 16 lanes vs Gen 5, 20 lanes
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 vs Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU
• Release date: 2024-01-07 vs 2024-12-31
• Launch MSRP: $221 vs $579
• Part number: SRN3QSRN46 vs SRQD4
• Base clock: 2.50 GHz on both, so this field is identical

The TDP is 65 for both, so that field does not differ. The market segment is Desktop for both. The multiplier is not unlocked for either.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the superior processor in every measured dimension. It delivers more than double the multicore throughput in Cinebench R23, with 48945 vs 21315. It also leads in single-core, with 6909 vs 3009 in R23. The 24-core, 24-thread configuration with 36 MB L3 cache and 5.60 GHz boost clock provides a decisive advantage over the 10-core, 16-thread i5-14400 with 20 MB L3 and 4.70 GHz boost.

The i5-14400 remains a functional desktop processor. Its 10 cores and 16 threads handle standard workloads, and it supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, which offers platform flexibility. Its launch MSRP of $221 is lower than the Ultra 9 285's $579, but the performance gap is so large that the price difference does not change the performance conclusion.

For users whose workloads are recorded in the database, the Ultra 9 285 is the choice. It wins all 17 head-to-head tests, occupies the 95th percentile of all CPUs, and sits near AMD EPYC server parts in the nearest rivals list. The i5-14400 sits at the 82nd percentile, near mobile H-series chips like the Core i7-12800H.

The verdict is straightforward: the Ultra 9 285 dominates in every benchmark category, with no recorded exception. The i5-14400 does not offer a single workload where it outperforms the Ultra 9 285. Any analysis of these two processors must conclude that the Ultra 9 285 is the faster part across the board.