Intel Core i5-14400F vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225T Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark comparisons in the database?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the Intel Core i5-14400F wins 4.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multicore performance?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225T scores 21,971 versus 21,645 for the Core i5-14400F, a 1.5% advantage for the Ultra part.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark margin between the two CPUs?

A: The largest margin is in Passmark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 5 225T scores 284 versus 86, a 69.7% advantage for the Ultra chip.

Q: Where does the Core i5-14400F show its biggest wins?

A: The Core i5-14400F leads by 36.9% in Passmark integer math and by 34.8% in Passmark data compression, plus a 13.6% edge in random string sorting.

Q: Do both chips use the same socket?

A: No. The Core i5-14400F uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 225T uses Intel Socket 1851.

Q: What are the overall benchmark percentiles for each processor?

A: The Core i5-14400F sits at the 83rd percentile among all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 225T sits at the 82nd percentile. Their average benchmark scores are 32,279 and 30,468, respectively.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and foundries. The Core i5-14400F is built on Raptor Lake-R architecture using a 10 nm process at Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 225T uses Arrow Lake-S architecture on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The transistor count for the Ultra 5 is 17,800 million, while the i5-14400F has no listed transistor count. Die sizes differ as well: the i5 measures 215 mm², the Ultra 5 measures 243 mm².

Core and thread configurations diverge sharply. Both have 10 cores, but the i5-14400F supports 16 threads, indicating hyper-threading, while the Ultra 5 225T has 10 threads, meaning one thread per core. The base clock is identical at 2.50 GHz for both, but the boost clock favors the Ultra 5 at 4.90 GHz versus 4.70 GHz for the i5.

Cache hierarchies differ. The i5-14400F has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 225T has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and the same 20 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 on the Ultra 5 likely contribute to its single-thread advantages.

Memory support shows a clear generational split. The i5-14400F supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 225T supports only DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Ultra 5 has a listed memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, a figure not provided for the i5. The i5 supports ECC memory; the Ultra 5 does not.

PCIe connectivity differs. The i5-14400F offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 5 225T offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 5 also includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU, whereas the i5-14400F has no integrated graphics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Across the Cinebench suite, the Core Ultra 5 225T takes a narrow but consistent lead. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 5 scores 2,214 against 2,181, a 1.5% margin. Single-core R15 shows 312 versus 307, a 1.6% edge. R20 multicore delivers 9,227 versus 9,090, again 1.5%. R20 single-core is 1,302 versus 1,283, also 1.5%. R23 multicore hits 21,971 versus 21,645, and R23 single-core reaches 3,101 versus 3,055, both at 1.5% deltas. The consistency of these margins suggests the Ultra 5's higher boost clock and larger caches give it a steady, if modest, advantage in rendering and general compute workloads.

The Passmark suite reveals a more polarized picture. The Ultra 5 225T dominates in several math and physics workloads. Passmark find prime numbers shows the starkest gap: 284 versus 86, a 69.7% advantage for the Ultra 5. Floating point math also favors the Ultra 5 heavily, with 82,751 versus 61,319, a 25.9% lead. Physics scores are 2,053 versus 1,523, a 25.8% gap. Data encryption goes to the Ultra 5 at 18,289 versus 16,949, a 7.3% edge. Extended instructions are nearly tied at 20,083 versus 19,937, a 0.7% lead for the Ultra 5. Single-thread performance in Passmark favors the Ultra 5 at 4,348 versus 3,701, a 14.9% margin, which appears in both the passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread entries.

The Core i5-14400F counters with significant wins in integer-heavy and data-processing tasks. Passmark integer math shows 81,524 versus 59,543, a 36.9% advantage for the i5. Data compression is similarly lopsided: 315,521 versus 233,998, a 34.8% lead. Random string sorting goes to the i5 at 32,680 versus 28,774, a 13.6% margin. The only other i5 win is Passmark multithread, where it edges the Ultra 5 by 25,470 to 25,358, a slim 0.4% margin.

The overall win count (13 for the Ultra 5, 4 for the i5) reflects the Ultra 5's broader superiority, but the i5's wins in integer math and data compression are substantial enough to matter for specific workloads. The i5 also holds a higher average benchmark score at 32,279 versus 30,468, despite losing more individual tests, because its wins in high-magnitude tests like data compression and integer math pull the average up.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T is the stronger processor for single-threaded and floating-point-oriented workloads. Its 14.9% lead in Passmark single-thread, 25.9% lead in floating point math, and 69.7% lead in prime number finding make it the clear choice for tasks that depend on per-core efficiency, math throughput, or physics simulation. The consistent 1.5% advantage across all Cinebench versions, both single and multicore, reinforces this pattern in rendering workloads.

The Intel Core i5-14400F retains a distinct role for integer-heavy and data-processing tasks. Its 36.9% advantage in integer math and 34.8% advantage in data compression are far larger than any Ultra 5 win outside of prime numbers. For users whose workloads involve sorting, compression, or integer arithmetic, the i5 offers a substantial edge. Its 0.4% lead in multithread Passmark, while narrow, also shows that the i5's 16 threads can keep pace with the Ultra 5's 10 threads in overall parallel throughput despite the Ultra 5's architectural advantages.

The i5-14400F also holds the 83rd percentile versus the Ultra 5's 82nd, and its average benchmark score of 32,279 beats the Ultra 5's 30,468. This suggests that, on aggregate, the i5 performs at a slightly higher level across the full measured workload set, even though it loses more individual comparisons. The Ultra 5's wins are numerous but often small, while the i5's wins are fewer but much larger in magnitude.

Platform considerations also favor different users. The i5-14400F supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory and includes ECC support, making it compatible with a wider range of existing systems and memory types. The Ultra 5 225T requires DDR5 only, has no ECC support, and uses a newer Socket 1851, which means a different motherboard. The Ultra 5's integrated graphics may be useful for systems without a discrete GPU, while the i5 requires a separate graphics card.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-14400F | Intel Core Ultra 5 225T |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 10 | 10 |

| Threads | 16 | 10 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.70 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Arrow Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 215 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 20 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU |

| Launch MSRP | $196 | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2024-01-07 | 2024-12-31 |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 83 | 82 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 32,279 | 30,468 |