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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data for this comparison is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every single recorded test against the Intel Core i5-14400T. Across all 17 head-to-head measurements, the Ultra 9 285 takes a 100% win rate, with margins ranging from 28% to 84.1%. The largest gap appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 9 285 scores 459 against the i5-14400T's 73, a delta of -84.1%. This indicates a massive advantage in integer-heavy, single-threaded algorithmic workloads, likely stemming from the combination of higher clock speeds and a more modern architecture.

In the Cinebench suite, the Ultra 9 285 delivers consistent dominance. For Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 versus 17,189 for the i5-14400T, a 64.9% lead. The single-core result tells a similar story: 6,909 versus 2,426, again a 64.9% advantage. This pattern repeats across Cinebench R15 and R20, where the delta remains fixed at -64.9% for both multi-core and single-core runs. The consistency of that percentage across all Cinebench versions suggests the performance ratio is stable regardless of the rendering workload size.

PassMark tests reveal a more varied picture. Data compression shows the Ultra 9 285 at 602,121 versus 235,636, a 60.9% lead. Data encryption shows a wider gap at 71.8%, with scores of 46,949 versus 13,244. Extended instructions (SIMD-heavy workloads) favor the Ultra 9 285 by 67.9%, scoring 45,357 against 14,562. Floating point math is another strong area for the Ultra 9 285, delivering 194,988 versus 49,139, a 74.8% margin. Integer math shows a 60.2% lead (164,869 versus 65,667), while the multithread test shows 56,602 versus 20,223, a 64.3% gap.

The smallest relative advantage appears in the PassMark single-thread test, where the Ultra 9 285 scores 4,881 versus 3,512, a 28% lead. This narrower gap indicates that while the Ultra 9 285 is clearly faster per core, the raw single-thread performance difference is less dramatic than the multi-threaded or specialized workload differences. Still, a 28% single-thread advantage is substantial in real-world terms, particularly for latency-sensitive applications.

Physics simulation in PassMark shows the Ultra 9 285 at 3,598 versus 1,244, a 65.4% lead. Random string sorting follows at 73,651 versus 25,181, a 65.8% gap. Across every workload category, from pure compute to memory-intensive sorting, the Ultra 9 285 holds a commanding position.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmarks, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins in every measurable category. There is no single test where the i5-14400T records a higher score. This is a comprehensive sweep, covering rendering (Cinebench), data processing (compression, encryption), mathematical computation (integer, floating point, prime numbers), and general multithreaded throughput.

For the i5-14400T, the absence of any wins means it cannot claim superiority in any workload captured by the database. Its closest relative performance comes in the PassMark single-thread test, where the 28% gap is the smallest of all comparisons. This suggests that if any area might narrow the divide, it would be lightly threaded, short-duration tasks where the i5-14400T's 4.50 GHz boost clock can partially offset its architectural disadvantages. However, even there, the Ultra 9 285's 5.60 GHz boost clock and newer core design maintain a clear edge.

The Ultra 9 285's largest wins occur in the most computationally intensive areas. Prime number finding (84.1% lead), floating point math (74.8%), and data encryption (71.8%) all show the Ultra 9 285 at roughly three to six times the i5-14400T's performance. These are workloads that scale with both core count and per-core efficiency, and the Ultra 9 285 delivers on both fronts. For users running scientific simulations, financial modeling, or heavy data transformation, the recorded data shows the Ultra 9 285 as the only viable choice between these two processors.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras. The i5-14400T uses Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, built on Intel's 10 nm process. The Ultra 9 285 uses Arrow Lake, specifically Arrow Lake-S, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. This node difference is significant: the 3 nm process allows for higher transistor density and better power efficiency, which helps explain the Ultra 9 285's performance advantages despite a higher TDP.

Core configurations differ markedly. The i5-14400T has 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with performance and efficiency cores. The Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, which implies no simultaneous multithreading (SMT) on its cores, a notable design choice for Arrow Lake. Despite fewer threads per core, the higher physical core count gives the Ultra 9 285 a massive multithreading advantage, as reflected in the Cinebench and PassMark multithread scores.

Cache hierarchies are also different. The i5-14400T has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core caches and 80% more L3 capacity directly benefit workloads with repeated data access, such as the compression and sorting tests where the Ultra 9 285 shows strong results.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The i5-14400T uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The Arc-branded GPU is a newer generation with more execution units, likely providing better iGPU performance, though the database does not include specific graphics benchmarks for this comparison.

The process node and architecture changes also affect clock behavior. The i5-14400T has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The Ultra 9 285 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. Higher clocks on both ends, combined with the newer architecture, explain the single-thread performance lead.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification field. The i5-14400T has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz versus 2.50 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.50 GHz versus 5.60 GHz. The i5-14400T has a TDP of 35 watts, while the Ultra 9 285 has a TDP of 65 watts.

Sockets are incompatible: the i5-14400T uses Intel Socket 1700, the Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851. Memory support differs, with the i5-14400T supporting both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 285 supports only DDR5. The Ultra 9 285 also lists a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the i5-14400T has no listed bandwidth figure.

PCIe lanes differ: the i5-14400T has Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), the Ultra 9 285 has Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The process node is 10 nm for the i5-14400T versus 3 nm for the Ultra 9 285, with the latter using TSMC as the foundry. The Ultra 9 285 has a listed transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the i5-14400T has no transistor count and a die size of 215 mm².

The integrated graphics differ as noted, and the release dates are different: the i5-14400T launched on 2024-01-07, the Ultra 9 285 on 2024-12-31. The launch MSRP for the i5-14400T is $221, and for the Ultra 9 285 it is $579. Both processors have locked multipliers, both support ECC memory, and both are currently active in production.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-14400T has a boost clock of 4.50 GHz.

Q: How do the core counts compare between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400T has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in the benchmark data?

A: The largest delta is in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 9 285 leads by 84.1% (459 versus 73).

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i5-14400T and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 list ECC memory support as true.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400T supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports only DDR5.

Q: Which processor shows a smaller gap in single-threaded performance?

A: The PassMark single-thread test shows the Ultra 9 285 leading by 28% (4,881 versus 3,512), which is the smallest margin of any benchmark in the comparison.