Intel Core i5-14400F vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split is decisively lopsided. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus takes 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core i5-14400F manages a single victory. That lone win, however, lands in a meaningful spot: Cinebench R23 single-core, where the i5-14400F scores 3055 against the Ultra 5's 2261, a 35.1% advantage. This suggests the older chip retains an edge in lightly threaded workloads that depend on a single core's peak performance.

Every other category favors the Ultra 5 250K Plus, often by substantial margins. The multi-core and throughput-oriented tests show the largest gaps. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 5 scores 4640 versus 2181, a 53% difference. Cinebench R20 multicore shows a similar pattern: 18442 against 9090, a 50.7% gap. The PassMark suite reinforces this trend, with the Ultra 5 leading in data compression by 44.5%, data encryption by 59.8%, and extended instructions by 55.3%. The pattern is clear: the Ultra 5 dominates wherever parallel execution and sustained throughput matter.

The i5-14400F's single win does not extend to other single-thread tests. PassMark single-thread scores show the Ultra 5 ahead at 4757 versus 3701, a 22.2% edge. Even Cinebench R15 single-core favors the Ultra 5, 328 to 307, a 6.4% margin. The R23 single-core result stands as an outlier, possibly reflecting different instruction scheduling or boost behavior under that specific workload. The data indicates the i5-14400F is a capable processor for legacy single-threaded tasks, but the Ultra 5 is the stronger all-round performer.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design eras and manufacturing approaches. The Intel Core i5-14400F is built on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, using Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 215 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses Arrow Lake Refresh, fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm node, with a larger die at 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. The process shrink gives the Ultra 5 a density advantage, though the larger die suggests more complex circuitry.

Core counts differ significantly. The i5-14400F has 10 cores and 16 threads, implying a hybrid arrangement with performance and efficiency cores. The Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, meaning no hyper-threading; each core handles a single thread. Despite fewer threads per core, the Ultra 5's higher physical core count drives its multi-core wins. Base and boost clocks also favor the Ultra 5: 4.20 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost, versus 2.50 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost on the i5-14400F.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. 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 doubles L1 to 192 KB per core, raises L2 to 3 MB per core, and increases shared L3 to 30 MB. Larger caches typically reduce memory latency and improve hit rates, which helps explain the Ultra 5's lead in data-intensive PassMark tests. Memory support also diverges: the i5-14400F accepts both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 supports only DDR5, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s.

Platform features differ as well. The i5-14400F uses Intel Socket 1700 with 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) and has no integrated graphics. The Ultra 5 uses Intel Socket 1851, offers 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, and includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Both support ECC memory. The Ultra 5 has an unlocked multiplier, while the i5-14400F is locked. A power draw distinction appears in TDP: 65 W for the i5-14400F versus 125 W for the Ultra 5, which correlates with the latter's higher clocks and core count.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest win for the Ultra 5 250K Plus comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 486 against the i5-14400F's 86, an 82.3% advantage. This test is sensitive to integer throughput and memory bandwidth, areas where the Ultra 5's extra cores and larger caches pay off. Floating-point math shows a 62.3% gap (162692 versus 61319), and physics simulation shows 3494 versus 1523, a 56.4% difference. Data encryption sees the Ultra 5 ahead by 59.8% (42144 versus 16949), indicating strong cryptographic instruction handling.

Multi-core rendering benchmarks follow the same pattern. Cinebench R15 multicore gives the Ultra 5 a 53% lead (4640 versus 2181). Cinebench R20 multicore shows 18442 versus 9090, also a 50.7% gap. PassMark multithread delivers 51596 versus 25470, a 50.6% difference. Random string sorting, a test of memory access patterns, sees the Ultra 5 at 69090 versus 32680, a 52.7% lead. The i5-14400F's only win, Cinebench R23 single-core at 3055 versus 2261, stands apart from the R15 and R20 single-core results, where the Ultra 5 leads by 6.4% and 50.7% respectively.

The average benchmark scores place the two chips in different leagues. The i5-14400F averages 32279, while the Ultra 5 averages 66855, roughly double. The i5-14400F sits at the 83rd percentile among all CPUs, while the Ultra 5 reaches the 93rd percentile. Nearest rival data confirms the positioning: the i5-14400F trades blows with AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (0.1% delta), Intel Core i9-11900 (0.2%), AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS (-0.2%), and Intel Core i7-12800H (0.5%). The Ultra 5 competes with AMD EPYC 4465P (-0.1%), Intel Xeon 6515P (-0.2%), Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX (-0.9%), and Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus (1.1%).

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded performance?

A: The results are mixed. The i5-14400F wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 35.1% (3055 versus 2261), but the Ultra 5 250K Plus wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 6.4% (328 versus 307) and PassMark single-thread by 22.2% (4757 versus 3701). The Ultra 5 leads in two of the three single-thread tests.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: The Ultra 5 leads by 53% in Cinebench R15 multicore, 50.7% in Cinebench R20 multicore, 29.9% in Cinebench R23 multicore, and 50.6% in PassMark multithread. These are consistent, substantial margins across different rendering and compute workloads.

Q: What explains the i5-14400F's single win in Cinebench R23 single-core?

A: The recorded data shows no direct explanation, but the i5-14400F has a lower base clock (2.50 GHz) yet a high boost clock (4.70 GHz), which may allow aggressive single-core boosting under that specific workload. The Ultra 5 has a higher base clock (4.20 GHz) and boost clock (5.30 GHz), yet scored lower in that test. The result stands as an outlier relative to other single-thread benchmarks.

Q: Do the two processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The i5-14400F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, while the Ultra 5 250K Plus supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, with a recorded bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The i5-14400F's memory bandwidth is not listed in the database.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Ultra 5 250K Plus provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the i5-14400F offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). This gives the Ultra 5 more headroom for expansion cards and storage devices.

Q: How do the integrated graphics compare?

A: The i5-14400F has no integrated graphics (N/A), while the Ultra 5 250K Plus includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. This means the Ultra 5 can output video without a discrete GPU, whereas the i5-14400F requires one.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus outperforms the Intel Core i5-14400F in 16 of 17 benchmarks, with an average benchmark score of 66855 versus 32279. That is a 107% higher average, placing the Ultra 5 at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, ten points above the i5-14400F's 83rd percentile. The Ultra 5's nearest rivals include server-class parts like the AMD EPYC 4465P and Intel Xeon 6515P, while the i5-14400F sits alongside mobile and older desktop chips like the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS and Intel Core i7-12800H.

For workloads that stress multiple cores, rendering, compression, encryption, or physics simulation, the Ultra 5 is the obvious choice. Its 18 cores and 18 threads, combined with 30 MB of L3 cache and 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, deliver roughly double the throughput in many tests. The i5-14400F retains a niche in a single benchmark, Cinebench R23 single-core, but that advantage does not generalize to other single-thread tests. The Ultra 5 also offers integrated graphics, an unlocked multiplier, and more PCIe lanes, all of which broaden its utility.

The i5-14400F, however, has a lower TDP of 65 W versus 125 W, which may matter for constrained system builds. Its support for DDR4 memory could also appeal to users reusing existing RAM. But on raw performance, the Ultra 5 wins decisively. The i5-14400F's lone victory appears as an anomaly rather than a trend. The database records confirm that the Ultra 5 250K Plus belongs in a higher performance tier.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-14400F | Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus |

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

| Cores | 10 | 18 |

| Threads | 16 | 18 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.70 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 215 mm² | 243 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

| 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) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 115.2 GB/s |

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

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Release Date | 2024-01-07 | 2026-03-10 |

| Launch MSRP | $196 | $199 |

| Part Number | SRN3RSRN47 | SA4UZ |