Intel Core i5-14400T vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a one-sided comparison. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H records the higher score. The Intel Core i5-14400T does not win a single test in this dataset. The margins vary considerably by workload, from a modest single-thread gap to a dominant multi-core and math-processing advantage.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Ultra 7 366H shows consistent strength. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 28477 against the i5-14400T's 17189, a delta of -39.6% from the perspective of the i5-14400T. The single-core result in the same test shows a similar proportional gap: 4020 versus 2426, a delta of -39.7%. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 and R15. In R20 multi-core, the scores are 11960 and 7219 (-39.6%), while single-core is 1688 versus 1018 (-39.7%). The R15 results are 2870 versus 1732 (-39.7%) for multi-core and 405 versus 244 (-39.8%) for single-core. The consistency of the delta across all Cinebench versions indicates a structural performance advantage rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

The Passmark tests reveal where the largest gaps appear. The most extreme difference is in the prime number search test, where the Ultra 7 366H scores 326 versus 73, a delta of -77.6%. This suggests a very large advantage in integer-heavy, branch-predicting workloads. Floating point math also shows a major split: 103615 versus 49139, a delta of -52.6%. Physics simulation follows closely with 2880 versus 1244, a delta of -56.8%. Data encryption shows a delta of -48.8% (25845 versus 13244), and extended instructions show -45.9% (26901 versus 14562).

The smallest margin appears in single-thread performance as measured by Passmark. The Ultra 7 366H scores 4043, while the i5-14400T scores 3512, a delta of only -13.1%. This is the only test where the two processors are relatively close. Integer math also shows a tighter gap than other Passmark tests: 83695 versus 65667, a delta of -21.5%. Data compression lands at -28% (327455 versus 235636). Random string sorting shows a delta of -36.8% (39814 versus 25181). The multi-thread Passmark score is 33429 versus 20223, a delta of -39.5%.

The average benchmark score tells the same story. The Ultra 7 366H has an average of 41263, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The i5-14400T has an average of 27166, placing it in the 79th percentile. The nearest rivals in the database confirm the positioning. The i5-14400T sits within 0.8% of the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355G and 0.7% of the Intel Core i7-13700H. The Ultra 7 366H sits within 0.7% of the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H and 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X. The performance class difference is clear from these rival clusters.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear performance hierarchy between these two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is the faster part in every single measured benchmark. The differences are not marginal in most tests; they are substantial, often exceeding 40%. The i5-14400T is not competitive in this comparison.

The Ultra 7 366H should be the choice for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance, especially in multi-threaded rendering, physics simulation, encryption, and floating-point workloads. Its 87th percentile standing and its proximity to the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X in the database place it in a performance tier far above the i5-14400T. The i5-14400T, with its 79th percentile, is closer to the Intel Core i9-9900K and the AMD Ryzen 7 5700G in average score. It is a capable desktop processor, but it does not match the mobile part in this head-to-head.

The only area where the i5-14400T is not dramatically behind is single-thread Passmark performance, where the delta is -13.1%. Still, a 13% deficit is a loss, not a tie. The data shows no scenario where the i5-14400T delivers a higher score. Therefore, the verdict from the measured data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is the superior processor in this comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural families and target different market segments. The i5-14400T is based on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, built on Intel's 10 nm process node. It features 10 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process node, and features 16 cores and 16 threads. The core counts are identical for threads, but the physical core count differs by six.

The process node difference is significant. The 3 nm node of the Panther Lake part allows for a denser, more power-efficient design. The i5-14400T uses a larger 10 nm process. The die size for the i5-14400T is recorded as 215 mm², while no die size is listed for the Ultra 7 366H. This makes a direct physical comparison impossible, but the process advantage is clear.

The cache hierarchies also differ. The i5-14400T has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7 366H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7 has larger per-core caches but slightly less total L3. The larger L1 and L2 caches on the Ultra 7 likely contribute to its single-thread advantage.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The i5-14400T ships with UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 7 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The memory support also differs: the i5-14400T supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Ultra 7 also has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while no bandwidth figure is listed for the i5-14400T. ECC memory is supported on the i5-14400T but not on the Ultra 7 366H.

Specification Differences

The socket types are different. The i5-14400T uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket. The Ultra 7 366H uses Intel BGA 2540, a mobile socket. This alone dictates their market segments: desktop versus mobile.

The base and boost clocks differ. The i5-14400T has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The Ultra 7 366H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Ultra 7 is higher in both metrics.

The thermal design power (TDP) figures are recorded as 35 watts for the i5-14400T and 25 watts for the Ultra 7 366H. Despite the higher performance, the mobile part is rated for lower power draw. This is consistent with the 3 nm process advantage.

The PCIe configurations differ. The i5-14400T supports Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 7 366H supports Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The desktop part has more PCIe lanes available.

The i5-14400T has a launch MSRP of $221. No launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra 7 366H. The i5-14400T was released on 2024-01-07, while the Ultra 7 366H was released on 2026-01-04, roughly two years later. The part numbers are also different: SRN3N for the i5-14400T and SA4R9Q9EL for the Ultra 7 366H. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has an average benchmark score of 41263, while the Intel Core i5-14400T has an average of 27166.

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

A: The Ultra 7 366H scores 28477 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the i5-14400T scores 17189. The recorded delta is -39.6% from the i5-14400T's perspective.

Q: Is there any test where the i5-14400T wins?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows 17 tests, and the Ultra 7 366H wins all 17.

Q: What is the smallest recorded performance difference?

A: The smallest delta is in the Passmark single-thread test, where the Ultra 7 366H scores 4043 and the i5-14400T scores 3512, a delta of -13.1%.

Q: What is the largest recorded performance difference?

A: The largest delta is in the Passmark find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 7 366H scores 326 and the i5-14400T scores 73, a delta of -77.6%.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The i5-14400T has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins all 17 recorded benchmarks. There is no category where the Intel Core i5-14400T shows a higher score. Therefore, the use-case split is entirely based on the magnitude of the Ultra 7's advantage and the specific requirements of the workload.

The Ultra 7 366H is the clear choice for multi-threaded rendering and video encoding, as shown by its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28477 versus 17189. It also dominates in physics simulation (2880 versus 1244), making it better suited for computational fluid dynamics or similar scientific workloads. The encryption performance (25845 versus 13244) and extended instructions (26901 versus 14562) indicate a strong showing in security-related and vectorized code. The floating-point math score (103615 versus 49139) is more than double, which matters for financial modeling and signal processing.

The i5-14400T does not win any measured test, but its smaller deficit in single-thread Passmark (4043 versus 3512, a delta of -13.1%) suggests that in lightly threaded, latency-sensitive desktop tasks, the gap is less punishing. Its lower average score of 27166 still places it in the 79th percentile, indicating it is not a weak processor in absolute terms. For a desktop system with a Socket 1700 motherboard, it offers DDR4 support and ECC memory, which are not available on the Ultra 7 366H.

For mobile users needing a processor for a laptop, the Ultra 7 366H is the only option of the two, given its BGA 2540 socket and 25-watt TDP. It also delivers higher performance despite the lower TDP. The i5-14400T, with its 35-watt TDP and Socket 1700, belongs in a desktop build. The data does not support any scenario where the i5-14400T is the faster part, so the selection is based on platform needs and the fact that the Ultra 7 366H provides superior performance in every measured category.