Intel Core i5-14400F vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 records an average benchmark score of 75488, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core i5-14400F averages 32279, which puts it in the 83rd percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 versus 21645 for the Core i5-14400F. The delta is -55.8%, meaning the Core Ultra 9 285 is 126% faster in this workload.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i5-14400F and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 have ECC memory support enabled.

Q: What are the launch MSRP values for each chip?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400F has a launch MSRP of $196. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a launch MSRP of $579.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core i5-14400F has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which chip delivers the larger single-thread advantage?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 leads by 24.2% in PassMark single-thread (4881 versus 3701). In Cinebench R23 single-core, the lead expands to 6909 versus 3055, a 55.8% gap.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i5-14400F is built on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, using Intel's 10 nm process node. It uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 moves to Arrow Lake, specifically Arrow Lake-S, fabricated on a 3 nm node by TSMC. This is a major foundry and process shift, from Intel's own fabs to TSMC.

The transistor count reflects the complexity of the newer design. The Core Ultra 9 285 integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core i5-14400F does not have a recorded transistor count but has a die size of 215 mm². The newer chip crams far more transistors into a slightly larger area.

Cache hierarchies diverge substantially. The Core i5-14400F has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. Every level of cache is larger on the Arrow Lake part.

The Core Ultra 9 285 includes integrated graphics, specifically Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core i5-14400F has no integrated graphics at all. This is a functional difference, not just a performance one, since the i5-14400F requires a discrete GPU for any display output.

Memory support differs. The Core i5-14400F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 9 285 only supports DDR5. The Core Ultra 9 285 also has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, a figure not listed for the i5-14400F.

PCIe lane counts differ as well. The Core i5-14400F provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra 9 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The newer part has four additional PCIe lanes.

Both chips share a 65 TDP and a 2.50 GHz base clock. The boost clock is higher on the Core Ultra 9 285 at 5.60 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier. The Core i5-14400F uses part number SRN3RSRN47, and the Core Ultra 9 285 uses SRQD4.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clean sweep in favor of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 across all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Core i5-14400F does not win a single test. This does not mean the older chip has no use case, but its strengths are relative to its own specifications rather than against this particular rival.

The Core i5-14400F offers a dual-channel memory controller that supports DDR4, which allows builders to reuse older memory modules. Its 16 threads from 10 cores still provide decent multi-threaded throughput for entry-level desktop workloads. Its 65 TDP matches the Core Ultra 9 285, so power draw is comparable on paper.

The Core Ultra 9 285 wins decisively in every category. The largest margins appear in integer-heavy and prime-number workloads. In PassMark find prime numbers, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 459 versus 86, a delta of -81.3%. Floating point math also shows a massive gap: 194988 versus 61319, a 68.6% difference.

The single-thread advantage is smaller but still substantial. PassMark single-thread shows 4881 versus 3701, a 24.2% lead. This suggests the Core Ultra 9 285 has a clear per-core performance edge, not just more cores.

For encoding, rendering, and multi-core productivity, the Core Ultra 9 285 is the obvious choice. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 48945 is more than double the i5-14400F's 21645. The Core i5-14400F remains relevant only for those constrained by platform compatibility or memory type preferences.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-14400F | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 |

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

| Core count | 10 | 24 |

| Thread count | 16 | 24 |

| Boost clock | 4.70 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Arrow Lake |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| 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) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | Not recorded | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe lanes | Gen 5, 16 lanes | Gen 5, 20 lanes |

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

| Launch MSRP | $196 | $579 |

| Part number | SRN3RSRN47 | SRQD4 |

The two chips share a 2.50 GHz base clock, 65 TDP, dual-channel memory bus, ECC support, desktop market segment, active production status, and locked multipliers. The release dates differ, with the Core i5-14400F launching on 2024-01-07 and the Core Ultra 9 285 on 2024-12-31.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 recorded comparisons. The smallest margin is in PassMark single-thread, where it leads 4881 to 3701, a delta of -24.2%. The same result appears for PassMark singlethread, confirming consistency.

The Cinebench suite shows a uniform pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4933 against 2181, a 55.8% delta. The single-core R15 test shows 696 versus 307, also a 55.9% delta. R20 multi-core delivers 20556 versus 9090, and R20 single-core delivers 2901 versus 1283. R23 follows with 48945 versus 21645 in multi-core and 6909 versus 3055 in single-core. Every Cinebench delta sits at roughly 55.8%, indicating a consistent architectural advantage.

PassMark workloads reveal where the Core Ultra 9 285 stretches its lead. Data compression shows 602121 versus 315521, a 47.6% delta. Data encryption shows 46949 versus 16949, a 63.9% delta. Extended instructions score 45357 versus 19937, a 56% delta. Find prime numbers delivers the largest gap: 459 versus 86, an 81.3% delta.

Floating point math favors the Core Ultra 9 285 heavily: 194988 versus 61319, a 68.6% delta. Integer math is closer but still decisive: 164869 versus 81524, a 50.6% delta. The multi-thread PassMark score shows 56602 versus 25470, a 55% delta. Physics tests show 3598 versus 1523, a 57.7% delta. Random string sorting shows 73651 versus 32680, a 55.6% delta.

The average benchmark score gap is also notable. The Core Ultra 9 285 averages 75488, while the Core i5-14400F averages 32279. That is a 134% higher average score for the newer chip. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 9 285 include the AMD EPYC 8224P at 75582 (-0.1%) and the AMD EPYC 4545P at 75373 (0.2%). The Core i5-14400F's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U at 32233 (0.1%) and the Intel Core i9-11900 at 32226 (0.2%).

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 dominates the Intel Core i5-14400F in every recorded benchmark. The 24-core, 24-thread Arrow Lake part with a 5.60 GHz boost clock and 36 MB of L3 cache outperforms the 10-core, 16-thread Raptor Lake chip across all workloads. The data shows no scenario where the Core i5-14400F takes a win.

The Core Ultra 9 285 is the choice for anyone prioritizing multi-threaded performance, single-thread speed, or memory bandwidth. Its 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth and 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide a more capable platform foundation. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG graphics add functionality that the Core i5-14400F simply does not have.

The Core i5-14400F remains a distinct option only for specific platform reasons. It uses Intel Socket 1700, supports DDR4 memory, and has a lower launch MSRP of $196. Builders who already own DDR4 modules or a compatible 1700 motherboard could consider it. Its 65 TDP matches the Core Ultra 9 285, so power efficiency at idle or low load may be similar, but the performance gap is too large to ignore.

The percentile rankings clarify the class difference. The Core Ultra 9 285 sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core i5-14400F sits in the 83rd. The Core Ultra 9 285 competes with server-class parts like the AMD EPYC 8224P, while the Core i5-14400F trades blows with mobile processors like the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U and the older Intel Core i9-11900.

The verdict from the recorded data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the superior processor in every measurable way. The Core i5-14400F is a lower-tier desktop part with a narrower feature set and a much lower ceiling for demanding workloads.