Intel Core i5-14400F vs Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database comparison between the Intel Core i5-14400F and the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus reveals a decisive performance gap. Out of 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus claims 16 wins, while the Core i5-14400F manages a single victory. The magnitude of the Ultra 7's wins is substantial, often exceeding 50% improvements over the i5-14400F.

The most severe margin appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus scores 615 against the Core i5-14400F's 86, a delta of -86%. This indicates the Ultra 7 handles this integer-heavy workload with nearly 7.2 times the throughput. Data encryption shows a -71.3% delta, with the Ultra 7 posting 59097 versus 16949, suggesting a strong advantage in cryptographic operations. Floating point math follows closely at -73.3%, where the Ultra 7's 229491 dwarfs the i5-14400F's 61319.

The Cinebench results reinforce this pattern. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 7 scores 6656 against 2181, a -67.2% delta. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 24461 versus 9090, a -62.8% difference. The R23 multicore test narrows the gap slightly to -51.1%, with the Ultra 7 at 44253 and the i5-14400F at 21645. Even in the single-core Cinebench R20 test, the Ultra 7 wins by -62.8% with 3453 against 1283, a surprisingly large margin for a single-threaded workload.

The single exception comes in Cinebench R23 single-core. Here the Core i5-14400F wins with a score of 3055 against the Ultra 7's 2439, a 25.3% advantage. This is an outlier in an otherwise one-sided dataset. The PassMark single-thread tests tell a different story, however, as the Ultra 7 leads with 5068 versus 3701, a -27% delta. The R23 single-core result may reflect a specific workload characteristic rather than a general single-thread superiority.

PassMark multithread shows the Ultra 7 at 68574 versus 25470, a -62.9% delta. Data compression follows at -60.8%, with 804322 against 315521. Extended instructions show -68.6%, random string sorting -66.3%, and physics -62.5%. Every category examined confirms the same hierarchy, with the Ultra 7 delivering between roughly 2 and 7 times the performance of the i5-14400F depending on the workload.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus dominates in nearly every measured workload category. Its wins span rendering, compression, encryption, extended instruction sets, prime number calculation, floating point math, integer math, multithreaded tasks, physics simulations, random string sorting, and single-threaded PassMark tests. This breadth suggests the Ultra 7 is suited for demanding computational tasks across the board, from content creation to data processing.

The Core i5-14400F's single win in Cinebench R23 single-core is its only bright spot. That particular test measures sustained single-threaded rendering performance, and the i5-14400F's 25.3% advantage there could matter for specific legacy applications or lightly threaded workflows that rely on that exact benchmark's characteristics. The database shows no other test where the i5-14400F leads.

For users prioritizing raw multi-threaded throughput, the choice is unambiguous. The Ultra 7's Cinebench R23 multicore score of 44253 is more than double the i5-14400F's 21645. For encryption-heavy workloads, the Ultra 7's 59097 score is nearly 3.5 times higher. For prime number calculations, the gap widens to over 7 times. The i5-14400F remains viable only for scenarios where its R23 single-core performance is the primary criterion, which is a narrow use case given its losses in all other single-threaded tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations. The Core i5-14400F uses Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus uses Arrow Lake Refresh silicon, fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. This process difference explains part of the performance gap, as the Ultra 7 packs 17,800 million transistors into a 243 mm² die, while the i5-14400F's transistor count is not recorded in the database, though its die size is 215 mm².

Core counts differ substantially. The i5-14400F offers 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Ultra 7 provides 24 cores and 24 threads. The Ultra 7 has no hyperthreading, as its thread count equals its core count, whereas the i5-14400F gains 6 extra threads from hyperthreading on 10 physical cores. Cache hierarchies also diverge. 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 7 doubles or more than doubles each level: 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3.

Memory support differs as well. The i5-14400F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 7 supports only DDR5. The Ultra 7's memory bandwidth is recorded at 115.2 GB/s, while the i5-14400F's bandwidth figure is absent from the database. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity favors the Ultra 7 with Gen 5 and 20 lanes, while the i5-14400F offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes.

The Ultra 7 includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, while the i5-14400F has no integrated graphics. The sockets differ, with the i5-14400F on Intel Socket 1700 and the Ultra 7 on Intel Socket 1851. The Ultra 7 has an unlocked multiplier, while the i5-14400F is locked. The Ultra 7's base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.50 GHz both exceed the i5-14400F's 2.50 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear separations. The Core i5-14400F has 10 cores and 16 threads; the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 2.50 GHz versus 3.70 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.70 GHz versus 5.50 GHz. Thermal design power is 65 W for the i5-14400F and 125 W for the Ultra 7.

Process nodes are 10 nm for the i5-14400F and 3 nm for the Ultra 7. The Ultra 7 uses TSMC as its foundry, while the i5-14400F uses Intel. Transistor counts are unlisted for the i5-14400F but recorded as 17,800 million for the Ultra 7. Die sizes are 215 mm² versus 243 mm².

L1 cache is 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core. L2 cache is 1.25 MB per core versus 3 MB per core. L3 cache is 20 MB shared versus 36 MB shared. Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 for the i5-14400F versus DDR5 only for the Ultra 7. Memory bandwidth is unlisted for the i5-14400F and 115.2 GB/s for the Ultra 7.

PCIe lanes are 16 for the i5-14400F and 20 for the Ultra 7, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics are absent on the i5-14400F and present as Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU on the Ultra 7. Sockets are 1700 versus 1851. The multiplier is locked on the i5-14400F and unlocked on the Ultra 7. Release dates are January 2024 for the i5-14400F and March 2026 for the Ultra 7. The launch MSRP is $196 for the i5-14400F and $299 for the Ultra 7. Percentile rankings place the i5-14400F at 83 and the Ultra 7 at 96.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has an average benchmark score of 93785, while the Core i5-14400F averages 32279. This places the Ultra 7 at the 96th percentile versus the i5-14400F's 83rd percentile.

Q: How does single-core performance compare between these two?

A: The results are mixed. The Core i5-14400F wins Cinebench R23 single-core with 3055 against 2439, a 25.3% advantage. However, the Ultra 7 wins PassMark single-thread with 5068 versus 3701, a -27% delta, and Cinebench R20 single-core with 3453 versus 1283, a -62.8% delta.

Q: Are these processors on the same socket?

A: No. The Core i5-14400F uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus uses Intel Socket 1851. They are not compatible with the same motherboards.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Core i5-14400F and the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus support ECC memory according to the database.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Core i5-14400F has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning it does not use simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has integrated graphics, listed as Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The Core i5-14400F has no integrated graphics.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split in target users. The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is the superior processor for anyone whose workloads align with the recorded benchmarks: rendering, compression, encryption, math operations, and multithreaded tasks. Its 96th percentile ranking and average score of 93785 place it firmly in high-end territory. The nearest rivals, the Intel Xeon 6520P, AMD EPYC 4564P, AMD EPYC 9175F, and AMD EPYC 4565P, all fall within a -2.1% to 0% delta, showing the Ultra 7 competes with server-class silicon.

The Core i5-14400F occupies a different tier. Its 83rd percentile ranking and average score of 32279 place it among mainstream desktop processors, with nearest rivals such as the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U and Intel Core i9-11900 within a 0.5% delta. Its single Cinebench R23 single-core win does not offset the Ultra 7's dominance in 16 other benchmarks.

Users with heavily threaded workloads should choose the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus without hesitation. Users with very specific single-threaded Cinebench R23 dependencies might consider the i5-14400F, but the Ultra 7's wins in all other single-threaded tests, including PassMark single-thread and Cinebench R20 single-core, make that a difficult recommendation. The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is the stronger processor across nearly every metric in the database.