Intel Core i5-14400F vs Intel Core i5-14401E Comparison

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core i5-14400F has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i5-14401E has 6 cores and 12 threads. Both processors are based on the Raptor Lake architecture.

Q: Do these processors have the same clock speeds?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i5-14400F and the Intel Core i5-14401E have a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i5-14401E includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Intel Core i5-14400F has no integrated graphics (N/A). This is a key distinction for systems that do not use a discrete graphics card.

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall performance percentile?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400F sits in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Intel Core i5-14401E sits in the 60th percentile. The average benchmark score for the 14400F is 32279, compared to 5253 for the 14401E.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each processor according to the recorded data?

A: The nearest rival to the Intel Core i5-14400F is the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U, with a delta of 0.1%. The nearest rival to the Intel Core i5-14401E is the Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4, with a delta of -0.1%.

Q: When were these processors released?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400F was released on 2024-01-07, and the Intel Core i5-14401E was released on 2024-06-30. Both are currently listed as active production parts.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same fundamental architecture, both belonging to the Core 14th Gen series built on Intel's Raptor Lake design. The codename for both is Raptor Lake-R, and they are manufactured on a 10 nm process node by Intel. The die size is identical at 215 mm², and the cache hierarchy matches exactly: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache.

The critical architectural difference lies in the core count. The Intel Core i5-14400F ships with 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i5-14401E ships with only 6 cores and 12 threads. This difference directly explains the large performance gap in multi-threaded workloads, since the 14400F has 4 additional cores available for parallel tasks.

Both processors support DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel memory bus, and both support ECC memory. The PCIe interface is the same for both: Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking capability is limited on both parts.

The integrated graphics situation is a notable architectural split. The 14401E includes UHD Graphics 730, whereas the 14400F has no integrated graphics at all. This means the 14400F requires a discrete GPU, while the 14401E can run a display output without one.

The socket is identical, Intel Socket 1700, and both parts carry a TDP of 65 watts. The part numbers differ, SRN3RSRN47 for the 14400F and Q49JSRNJS for the 14401E, which reflects the different product segmentation despite the shared platform.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous about which processor is faster. The Intel Core i5-14400F wins all six recorded head-to-head benchmarks, with no wins recorded for the Intel Core i5-14401E. The performance delta is consistent across every test, hovering around 19% in favor of the 14400F.

For workloads that depend on multi-threaded throughput, such as rendering, video encoding, or heavy compilation, the 14400F is the clear choice. Its 10 cores and 16 threads provide a substantial advantage over the 6-core, 12-thread 14401E. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 21645 for the 14400F versus 18161 for the 14401E reflects this gap directly.

For single-threaded performance, the same pattern holds. The 14400F delivers a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3055, while the 14401E manages 2564. This is a 19.1% difference, showing that the clock speeds alone do not compensate for the architectural differences between the parts.

The 14401E does have one clear advantage: integrated graphics. A system built around the 14401E does not require a separate graphics card for basic display output, which can simplify a build. The 14400F has no integrated graphics, so it demands a discrete GPU at all times.

Beyond that, the 14401E's only other distinguishing feature is its lower average benchmark score of 5253 versus 32279 for the 14400F. The 14401E's nearest rival is the Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4, a server-class part from an older generation. The 14400F's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U, a modern mobile processor, suggesting the 14400F competes in a much higher performance tier.

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows several fields where the two processors differ. The most significant difference is the core count: 10 cores for the 14400F versus 6 cores for the 14401E. Thread count follows the same pattern, with 16 threads for the 14400F and 12 threads for the 14401E.

Clock speeds are identical: both have a 2.50 GHz base clock and a 4.70 GHz boost clock. The TDP is also the same at 65 watts for both parts.

Integrated graphics differ completely. The 14400F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A, while the 14401E includes UHD Graphics 730.

The release dates differ, with the 14400F launching on 2024-01-07 and the 14401E launching on 2024-06-30. The launch MSRP for the 14400F is $196, while the 14401E has no recorded launch MSRP.

The part numbers differ as well: SRN3RSRN47 for the 14400F and Q49JSRNJS for the 14401E.

All other specifications match. Both use Intel Socket 1700, the Raptor Lake architecture, the Raptor Lake-R codename, a 10 nm process node, a 215 mm² die size, and identical cache configurations. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory, dual-channel memory bus, ECC memory, and PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. Both are desktop parts with active production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data covers six Cinebench tests, and the Intel Core i5-14400F wins every single one. The margin is remarkably consistent across the entire test suite.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 14400F scores 2181 against 1830 for the 14401E, a delta of 19.2%. The single-core R15 test shows the same story: 307 for the 14400F versus 258 for the 14401E, a delta of 19%.

Cinebench R20 multicore repeats the 19.2% delta, with the 14400F scoring 9090 and the 14401E scoring 7627. The R20 single-core test also shows 19.2%, with scores of 1283 and 1076 respectively.

Cinebench R23 multicore, the most demanding of the recorded tests, gives the 14400F a score of 21645 and the 14401E a score of 18161. That is again a 19.2% advantage. The R23 single-core test comes in at 19.1%, with the 14400F scoring 3055 and the 14401E scoring 2564.

The consistency of these deltas, all clustering between 19% and 19.2%, indicates that the performance gap is structural rather than workload-specific. The 14400F's additional cores and threads provide a uniform advantage across both multi-threaded and single-threaded Cinebench workloads.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The 14400F has an average benchmark score of 32279, while the 14401E has an average of 5253. The 14400F's performance percentile of 83 versus 60 for the 14401E places them in different tiers of the database's CPU rankings.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-14400F wins in every benchmark category recorded. Its strengths are most pronounced in multi-threaded workloads, where the 10-core, 16-thread configuration delivers a 19.2% advantage over the 14401E in Cinebench R23 multicore. This makes it the stronger choice for rendering, content creation, and any application that scales with core count.

The 14400F also wins in single-threaded tests, with a 19.1% advantage in Cinebench R23 single-core. Even though the clock speeds are identical, the 14400F's higher per-core performance, as measured by the recorded scores, gives it the edge in lightly threaded applications such as web browsing, office productivity, and many games.

The Intel Core i5-14401E has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its only functional advantage is the inclusion of UHD Graphics 730. For a system that needs display output without a discrete GPU, such as a basic office machine or a low-power server, the 14401E can operate standalone. The 14400F cannot do this, as it has no integrated graphics.

The 14401E also matches the 14400F in several areas that matter for platform compatibility: the same socket, the same memory support for DDR4 and DDR5, the same dual-channel memory bus, the same ECC memory support, and the same PCIe Gen 5 interface with 16 lanes. Systems built around either processor can use the same motherboards and memory configurations.

In terms of efficiency, both parts have the same 65 watt TDP, so there is no power consumption advantage recorded for either processor. The 14401E's lower core count does not translate into a lower power envelope according to the data.

The benchmark results indicate that the 14400F is the superior processor in every measured dimension. The 14401E's role is limited to scenarios where integrated graphics are required and the performance gap is acceptable. For any workload where CPU performance matters, the 14400F is the only choice between the two.