Intel Core i5-14400F vs Intel Core i9-14901E Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E records an average benchmark score of 37911, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core i5-14400F scores 32279 on average, which puts it in the 83rd percentile.

Q: How does the i9-14901E compare to its closest rival in the database?

A: The i9-14901E is essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, which scores 37904, a delta of 0%. It also sits just ahead of the Intel Core 5 211E (37829, delta of 0.2%) and behind the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X (37943, delta of -0.1%).

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The i5-14400F has 10 cores and 16 threads. The i9-14901E has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: The i5-14400F has no integrated graphics (N/A). The i9-14901E includes UHD Graphics 770.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two?

A: The i5-14400F boosts to 4.70 GHz, while the i9-14901E boosts to 5.60 GHz. Their base clocks are 2.50 GHz and 2.80 GHz, respectively.

Q: Which processor wins in PassMark physics testing?

A: The i9-14901E delivers a PassMark physics score of 3041, which is 49.9% ahead of the i5-14400F's score of 1523.

Architecture Differences

Both processors come from Intel's Core 14th Gen series and share the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-R codename. They are both fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process node, but the die sizes differ: the i5-14400F measures 215 mm², while the i9-14901E is larger at 257 mm².

The core configurations are not identical. The i5-14400F uses 10 cores with 16 threads, whereas the i9-14901E uses 8 cores with 16 threads. Both rely on the same per-core L1 cache size of 80 KB, but the L2 and L3 caches differ. The i5-14400F has 1.25 MB of L2 per core and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The i9-14901E has 2 MB of L2 per core and 36 MB of shared L3 cache.

The clock structures are also different. The i5-14400F runs a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The i9-14901E runs a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. Both chips have a 65 W TDP, use the Intel Socket 1700, support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode, and support ECC memory. Both provide PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

The most visible architectural feature difference is integrated graphics: the i5-14400F has no iGPU, while the i9-14901E includes UHD Graphics 770. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are marked as Active production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a consistent pattern: the i9-14901E dominates the i5-14400F in nearly every measured test, though the i5-14400F does claim two notable wins.

In Cinebench testing, the i9-14901E leads across the board. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 2595 versus 2181, a 16% advantage. The single-core R15 result is 366 versus 307, a 16.1% edge. The R20 multicore test shows 10816 against 9090, again a 16% gap, and the R20 single-core test shows 1526 versus 1283, a 15.9% lead. Cinebench R23 multicore results are 25753 for the i9-14901E and 21645 for the i5-14400F, a 16% difference, while the R23 single-core test shows 3635 versus 3055, also 16%.

PassMark results follow a similar pattern in most categories. The i9-14901E wins PassMark multithread with 30298 against 25470, a 15.9% advantage. PassMark single-thread scores are 4354 versus 3701, a 15% lead. The largest win for the i9-14901E appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 189 versus 86, a 54.5% advantage. PassMark physics shows 3041 versus 1523, a 49.9% lead. Integer math favors the i9-14901E at 112736 versus 81524, a 27.7% edge, and floating-point math favors it at 81089 versus 61319, a 24.4% margin. Data encryption goes to the i9-14901E at 18571 versus 16949, an 8.7% difference, and random string sorting goes to it at 39138 versus 32680, a 16.5% advantage.

The i5-14400F takes two wins. PassMark data compression shows the i5-14400F at 315521 versus 288777, a 9.3% advantage. PassMark extended instructions shows the i5-14400F at 19937 versus 17249, a 15.6% lead. These two wins highlight areas where the i5-14400F's 10-core layout provides a measurable benefit, but they do not offset the broad performance gap elsewhere.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 10 (i5-14400F) versus 8 (i9-14901E)
• Base clock: 2.50 GHz versus 2.80 GHz
• Boost clock: 4.70 GHz versus 5.60 GHz
• Die size: 215 mm² versus 257 mm²
• L2 cache: 1.25 MB per core versus 2 MB per core
• L3 cache: 20 MB shared versus 36 MB shared
• Integrated graphics: N/A versus UHD Graphics 770
• Release date: 2024-01-07 versus 2024-06-30
• Launch MSRP: $196 for the i5-14400F; no launch MSRP is recorded for the i9-14901E
• Part number: SRN3RSRN47 versus Q49ESRNJH
• Average benchmark score: 32279 versus 37911
• Percentile vs all CPUs: 83 versus 86

Fields that are identical include threads (16), TDP (65 W), socket (Intel Socket 1700), architecture (Raptor Lake), process node (10 nm), L1 cache (80 KB per core), memory support (DDR4, DDR5), memory bus (dual-channel), ECC support (true), PCIe (Gen 5, 16 lanes), market segment (Desktop), production status (Active), and multiplier unlocked (false).

Where Each One Wins

The i9-14901E is the stronger processor for the majority of workloads. Its 15% to 16% lead in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests indicates better sustained multi-threaded rendering performance. The single-core Cinebench results, also around 16% higher, point to faster response in lightly threaded applications. PassMark multithread and single-thread scores reinforce this, with 15.9% and 15% advantages, respectively.

The i9-14901E is particularly strong in math-heavy and physics workloads. Its 54.5% lead in find prime numbers and 49.9% lead in physics show a large advantage in integer-heavy and simulation-style tasks. Integer math and floating-point math also favor it by 27.7% and 24.4%. Random string sorting, which often reflects database and text-processing workloads, goes to the i9-14901E by 16.5%. Data encryption shows a smaller but still clear 8.7% win.

The i5-14400F wins in two specific areas. Data compression, scored at 315521, is 9.3% ahead of the i9-14901E, making it the better choice for compression-heavy tasks. Extended instructions, at 19937, is 15.6% ahead, indicating an advantage in workloads that use specialized instruction sets. These are narrow but real wins.

The i5-14400F also holds an advantage in core count, with 10 cores versus 8, and a smaller die size at 215 mm² versus 257 mm². It also has a recorded launch MSRP of $196, while the i9-14901E has no recorded launch MSRP. The i5-14400F was released earlier, on 2024-01-07, versus 2024-06-30 for the i9-14901E.

The Verdict

The recorded data clearly favors the Intel Core i9-14901E for most use cases. It wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, including all six Cinebench tests and the majority of PassMark tests. Its average benchmark score of 37911 places it at the 86th percentile of all CPUs, five points above the i5-14400F's 83rd percentile. The i9-14901E delivers higher single-thread performance, higher multi-thread performance in most tests, and substantially better physics and prime-number workloads.

The Intel Core i5-14400F is the better choice only for workloads that specifically benefit from its two additional cores and its wins in data compression and extended instructions. Those two benchmark victories, 9.3% in data compression and 15.6% in extended instructions, give it a defined niche. Its 10-core design and smaller die size make it a distinct option, and its launch MSRP of $196 is recorded in the database.

For rendering, simulation, encryption, sorting, and general productivity, the i9-14901E is the stronger processor based on the benchmark data. For compression and extended-instruction workloads, the i5-14400F has the edge. The decision rests on which workload type matters more.