Intel Core i5-14400F vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core i5-14400F and the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H shows a decisive overall advantage for the Ultra 9, which wins 14 of the 17 recorded tests. The remaining three wins belong to the i5-14400F, and those wins are concentrated in specific Cinebench workloads.

The most extreme margin in the entire dataset appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Core Ultra 9 386H scores 341, while the Core i5-14400F scores 86, giving the Ultra 9 an advantage of 74.8%. This is a workload that heavily rewards the Panther Lake architecture's per-core throughput and larger cache structure.

The Core Ultra 9 386H also shows substantial leads in other PassMark subtests. In floating point math, it scores 108527 against 61319, a 43.5% advantage. Physics testing shows a 49.7% gap, with the Ultra 9 scoring 3028 versus 1523 for the i5-14400F. Data encryption favors the Ultra 9 by 37.6% (27150 versus 16949), and extended instructions show a 31.6% lead (29138 versus 19937). The multithread PassMark score is 35399 for the Ultra 9 versus 25470 for the i5-14400F, a 28% difference. Random string sorting shows a 22.4% gap, and integer math is closer at 6.6% (87284 versus 81524). Single-thread PassMark also favors the Ultra 9 by 12.3% (4218 versus 3701).

In Cinebench multicore tests, the Ultra 9 wins both R15 and R20. The R15 multicore result is 3223 versus 2181, a 32.3% lead, and the R20 multicore result is 12820 versus 9090, a 29.1% lead. These are large gaps that indicate the Ultra 9's 16 cores provide substantial parallel throughput in these rendering workloads.

The Core i5-14400F claims its wins in the newer Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the i5-14400F scores 21645 versus 20547 for the Ultra 9, a 5.3% advantage. The single-core R23 test shows the largest win for the i5-14400F: it scores 3055 against 2071.5, a 47.5% lead. The i5-14400F also narrowly wins Cinebench R15 single-core, scoring 307 versus 303.5, a 1.2% margin.

The data indicates that the Core Ultra 9 386H is the stronger processor in most measured workloads, particularly those involving encryption, math operations, and multi-threaded rendering. The Core i5-14400F retains a clear edge in Cinebench R23, which likely reflects its higher boost clock and the specific code path used by that benchmark version.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has an average benchmark score of 43210, while the Intel Core i5-14400F has an average score of 32279. The Ultra 9 also sits in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 83rd percentile for the i5-14400F.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-core Cinebench R23 performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400F scores 3055 in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is 47.5% higher than the Core Ultra 9 386H's score of 2071.5. This is the largest single-core gap in the head-to-head results.

Q: What is the biggest performance difference in the benchmark data?

A: The PassMark find prime numbers test shows the largest delta, with the Core Ultra 9 386H scoring 341 versus 86 for the Core i5-14400F. That is a 74.8% difference in favor of the Ultra 9.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 9 386H win in every PassMark subtest?

A: Yes, the Core Ultra 9 386H wins all eight PassMark subtests recorded in the head-to-head data: data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, find prime numbers, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, which is higher than the Core i5-14400F's boost clock of 4.70 GHz. Despite this, the i5-14400F wins Cinebench R23 single-core by a wide margin.

Q: What is the difference in thread count between the two processors?

A: Both processors have 16 threads. The Core i5-14400F has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning the Ultra 9 does not use hyper-threading.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architecture families and target different market segments. The Intel Core i5-14400F is a desktop part built on Raptor Lake-R architecture with a 10 nm process node, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is a mobile processor using Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Core counts differ substantially. The i5-14400F has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 9 achieves its thread count without simultaneous multithreading, which is a notable architectural decision.

Cache hierarchies are also different. The i5-14400F has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 386H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 has larger per-core caches but slightly less shared L3 total.

Memory support diverges as well. The i5-14400F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, and the database records a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s for the Ultra 9. The i5-14400F supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 9 does not.

PCI Express connectivity differs. The i5-14400F provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra 9 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes. The i5-14400F has no integrated graphics, while the Ultra 9 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics.

The power envelope is a major distinction. The i5-14400F has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Ultra 9 386H has a TDP of 25 watts. The socket types are different as well: the i5-14400F uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2540. The die size for the i5-14400F is recorded as 215 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Ultra 9.

Release timing is separated by roughly two years. The i5-14400F was released on 2024-01-07, and the Ultra 9 386H on 2026-01-04. The i5-14400F has a recorded launch MSRP of $196, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra 9. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H as the more capable processor in overall terms. Its average benchmark score of 43210 places it 34% higher than the i5-14400F's 32279 average. The Ultra 9 also ranks in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, above the i5-14400F's 83rd percentile. In the nearest rival comparison, the Ultra 9 sits close to the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 with a delta of -0.3%, and it slightly outperforms the Intel Core i9-12900 by 0.7% and the Core i9-12900KF by 0.9%. The i5-14400F, by contrast, is nearly tied with the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U at 0.1% and the Intel Core i9-11900 at 0.2%, while running 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS.

For users prioritizing multi-threaded rendering in Cinebench R15 or R20, the Ultra 9 386H is clearly the better choice. Its R15 multicore score of 3223 is 32.3% ahead, and its R20 multicore score of 12820 is 29.1% ahead. The same holds for PassMark physics, where the Ultra 9 leads by 49.7%, and for data encryption, where the lead is 37.6%.

The Core i5-14400F is the better option for Cinebench R23 workloads. It leads by 5.3% in multicore and by 47.5% in single-core. This suggests that the R23 benchmark favors the i5-14400F's clock speed and core configuration. For users whose primary workload is specifically R23, the i5-14400F delivers better results.

The Ultra 9 386H also offers integrated graphics, which the i5-14400F lacks, plus a 25 watt TDP that indicates much lower power draw in mobile applications. The i5-14400F's 65 watt TDP and desktop socket make it a different class of product. The data does not support a single universal recommendation; it supports picking the Ultra 9 for broad compute performance and the i5-14400F for specific Cinebench R23 scenarios.

Specification Differences

The Intel Core i5-14400F and Intel Core Ultra 9 386H differ across nearly every specification field in the database. Core count is 10 versus 16 in favor of the Ultra 9, while thread count is identical at 16. Base clocks are 2.50 GHz for the i5-14400F and 2.10 GHz for the Ultra 9, but boost clocks are 4.70 GHz and 4.90 GHz, respectively. TDP is 65 watts for the desktop part and 25 watts for the mobile part.

Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1700 for the i5-14400F versus Intel BGA 2540 for the Ultra 9. Architecture is Raptor Lake versus Panther Lake, and the process nodes are 10 nm and 3 nm. The i5-14400F has a die size of 215 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Ultra 9.

Cache details differ at every level. L1 cache is 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core. L2 cache is 1.25 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core. L3 cache is 20 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 for the i5-14400F, while the Ultra 9 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Ultra 9 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, which the i5-14400F lacks. ECC memory support is present on the i5-14400F but absent on the Ultra 9. PCIe lanes are 16 for the i5-14400F and 12 for the Ultra 9, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics are N/A for the i5-14400F and Intel Xe3 Graphics for the Ultra 9.

Market segment is desktop for the i5-14400F and mobile for the Ultra 9. Release dates are 2024-01-07 and 2026-01-04. The i5-14400F has a launch MSRP of $196, while the Ultra 9 has none recorded. Both have locked multipliers. Part numbers are SRN3RSRN47 for the i5-14400F and SA4R5Q9EH for the Ultra 9. Production status is Active for both.