Intel Core i5-14400F vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database positions these two Intel processors in adjacent percentile brackets, with the Core Ultra 5 336H at the 84th percentile and the Core i5-14400F at the 83rd percentile. The average benchmark score tells the same story: the Ultra 5 336H records 34,485 points versus 32,279 for the i5-14400F, a gap of roughly 6.8 percent. The Ultra 5 wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, including every Cinebench iteration and most PassMark workloads.

The i5-14400F claims exactly two victories, but they are decisive in their respective domains. It beats the Ultra 5 by 31.3 percent in PassMark integer math and by 12.5 percent in data compression. For workloads that rely on integer arithmetic or compression throughput, the desktop part is the clear choice.

The Ultra 5 336H dominates everywhere else. Its single-core advantage appears consistently across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, with margins between 9.8 and 10 percent. The mobile chip also leads in floating-point math by 25.6 percent, in physics by 43.2 percent, and in prime number finding by a massive 71.2 percent. Data encryption favors the Ultra 5 by 20.4 percent, and extended instructions by 18.8 percent.

For buyers choosing between a desktop and a mobile platform, the data indicates the Ultra 5 336H delivers superior overall throughput despite a much lower TDP envelope. The i5-14400F remains relevant only for specific integer-heavy tasks where its architecture holds a measurable edge.

Where Each One Wins

The i5-14400F wins in two narrow categories. PassMark integer math is its strongest showing, scoring 81,524 against 62,070 for the Ultra 5. This 31.3 percent advantage suggests the desktop chip's higher sustained clock speeds and larger L3 cache benefit workloads with heavy integer operations. Data compression also favors the i5 by 12.5 percent, with scores of 315,521 versus 280,340. These wins indicate the desktop part handles compression algorithms and integer-bound code with greater efficiency.

The Ultra 5 336H wins in every other measured category. Its most dramatic victory comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 299 versus just 86 for the i5, a 71.2 percent margin. Physics simulation shows a 43.2 percent gap in favor of the Ultra 5, with scores of 2,682 versus 1,523. Floating-point math favors the mobile chip by 25.6 percent, and data encryption by 20.4 percent. Extended instructions follow at 18.8 percent, and multithreaded performance shows a 10.8 percent advantage.

Single-thread performance belongs to the Ultra 5 across all three Cinebench versions. The R15 single-core test shows 341 versus 307, R20 shows 1,422 versus 1,283, and R23 shows 3,387 versus 3,055. Each margin sits near 10 percent. The Ultra 5 also wins the PassMark single-thread test with 4,013 versus 3,701, a 7.8 percent gap. Multi-core Cinebench results consistently favor the Ultra 5 by 9.8 percent across R15, R20, and R23, with scores of 2,418 versus 2,181, 10,076 versus 9,090, and 23,991 versus 21,645 respectively.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and target different platforms. The i5-14400F belongs to the Core 14th Gen family, uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-R codename, and fits the Intel Socket 1700. It is a desktop part built on Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 215 mm². The Ultra 5 336H uses the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename, fits the Intel BGA 2540 socket, and targets mobile systems. It is built on Intel's 3 nm process.

Core counts differ substantially. The i5-14400F has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 5 offers more physical cores but the same thread count, indicating a different core configuration where hyperthreading may not be present on all cores. The Ultra 5's base clock is 1.90 GHz with a boost of 4.60 GHz, whereas the i5 starts at 2.50 GHz and boosts to 4.70 GHz. The desktop chip runs higher clocks, but the mobile chip compensates with more cores and a more advanced process node.

Cache hierarchies differ per core. 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 336H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 provides larger per-core caches but slightly less total L3. Memory support also differs: the i5 supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Ultra 5 records a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the i5 does not have a listed bandwidth figure.

Power and platform characteristics diverge sharply. The i5-14400F has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Ultra 5 336H sits at 25 watts. The i5 supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 5 does not. PCIe lane counts differ as well: the i5 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra 5 provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes. The i5 has no integrated graphics, whereas the Ultra 5 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. The i5 launched with a $196 launch MSRP, while the Ultra 5 has no listed launch price in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H records an average benchmark score of 34,485, compared to 32,279 for the Intel Core i5-14400F.

Q: How many head-to-head tests does each processor win?

A: The Ultra 5 336H wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The i5-14400F wins 2.

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

A: The largest margin is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 5 336H scores 299 versus 86 for the i5-14400F, a 71.2 percent advantage for the mobile chip.

Q: Does the i5-14400F win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes. The i5-14400F wins PassMark integer math by 31.3 percent and PassMark data compression by 12.5 percent.

Q: How do the Cinebench multi-core scores compare?

A: The Ultra 5 336H leads in all three Cinebench multi-core tests: R15 at 2,418 versus 2,181, R20 at 10,076 versus 9,090, and R23 at 23,991 versus 21,645. Each margin is 9.8 percent.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400F supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite provides the cleanest comparison of raw CPU throughput. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Ultra 5 336H wins every round. Multi-core R15 shows 2,418 versus 2,181, a 9.8 percent gap. Single-core R15 shows 341 versus 307, a 10 percent gap. R20 multi-core delivers 10,076 versus 9,090, again 9.8 percent. R20 single-core shows 1,422 versus 1,283, a 9.8 percent margin. R23 multi-core records 23,991 versus 21,645, and R23 single-core records 3,387 versus 3,055, both at 9.8 percent. The consistency of these margins indicates a uniform architectural advantage for the Ultra 5 across both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering workloads.

PassMark results break into two groups. The i5-14400F dominates integer math with 81,524 versus 62,070, a 31.3 percent lead. It also wins data compression with 315,521 versus 280,340, a 12.5 percent margin. These two wins show the desktop chip's strength in arithmetic-heavy and compression-bound code.

The Ultra 5 336H wins the remaining PassMark tests with varying margins. Floating-point math shows 82,415 versus 61,319, a 25.6 percent advantage. Physics delivers 2,682 versus 1,523, a 43.2 percent gap. Prime number finding records 299 versus 86, the largest margin at 71.2 percent. Data encryption shows 21,291 versus 16,949, a 20.4 percent lead. Extended instructions score 24,542 versus 19,937, an 18.8 percent margin. Multithread performance records 28,545 versus 25,470, a 10.8 percent gap. Random string sorting shows 34,402 versus 32,680, a 5 percent margin, and single-thread performance records 4,013 versus 3,701, a 7.8 percent lead.

The overall pattern is clear. The Ultra 5 336H wins the majority of tests by substantial margins, especially in floating-point, physics, encryption, and prime number calculations. The i5-14400F holds a narrow but significant advantage in integer math and compression. Buyers optimizing for those specific workloads can justify the desktop part, while the Ultra 5 delivers broader performance across almost every other measured category.