Intel Core i5-14490F vs Intel Core i9-14900KS Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core i9-14900KS. Across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the i9-14900KS wins every test. The i5-14490F does not secure a single victory. The most consistent margin appears in the Cinebench suite, where the i9-14900KS leads by exactly 54.9% in every run. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i9 scores 50,995 points versus 23,000 for the i5. In single-core, the i9 posts 7,199 points against 3,247. These deltas are uniform across R15, R20, and R23, indicating that the performance gap scales proportionally with the workload.

The Passmark results reveal a wider spread of margins. The smallest gap is in Passmark single-thread, where the i9 leads by 19.6% (4,815 versus 3,873). The largest gap appears in Passmark data encryption, with the i9 ahead by 61.8% (47,717 versus 18,225). Random string sorting also shows a large disparity at 60.3% (89,789 versus 35,608). Integer math trails at 58.7% in favor of the i9 (212,644 versus 87,844). Data compression shows a 57.7% edge (803,368 versus 340,026), while floating-point math delivers a 56.8% advantage (153,975 versus 66,558). Extended instructions are 52.3% higher on the i9 (45,524 versus 21,731), and multithread performance is 52.2% better (60,012 versus 28,662). The smallest multi-core gap is in Passmark physics, where the i9 leads by 38.1% (3,381 versus 2,093). Find prime numbers shows a 50% difference (244 versus 122).

The average benchmark score reinforces this hierarchy. The i9-14900KS records an average score of 81,127, while the i5-14490F sits at 38,149. That places the i9 at approximately 112.7% higher average performance. The percentile rankings confirm the split: the i9 sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the i5 ranks in the 86th percentile. The i9's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon w5-3535X (81,115, 0% delta), AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX (81,103, 0% delta), AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 (80,762, 0.5% delta), and Intel Xeon 638 (80,723, 0.5% delta). The i5's nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T (38,194, -0.1% delta), Intel Core i5-13600KF (38,103, 0.1% delta), AMD Ryzen 7 250 (38,221, -0.2% delta), and Intel Core i5-13600HX (38,261, -0.3% delta). These rival groups show that each processor is competitive within its own performance tier, but the two tiers are far apart.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same Raptor Lake architecture and Raptor Lake-R codename, manufactured by Intel on a 10 nm process node. The die size differs: the i5 measures 215 mm², while the i9 is larger at 257 mm². The core configuration is the most significant architectural split. The i5-14490F uses 10 cores and 16 threads, while the i9-14900KS uses 24 cores and 32 threads. This gives the i9 14 additional cores and 16 additional threads.

Cache hierarchies diverge in the L2 and L3 levels. Both use 80 KB of L1 cache per core. The i5 allocates 1.25 MB of L2 per core, while the i9 allocates 2 MB per core. Shared L3 cache also differs: the i5 has 24 MB, the i9 has 36 MB. The larger die and additional cache on the i9 correlate with its higher core count.

Clock speeds separate the two further. The i5 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The i9 starts at 3.20 GHz base and reaches 6.20 GHz boost. The i9's boost clock is 1.20 GHz higher, and its base clock is 0.70 GHz higher. The i9 also carries an unlocked multiplier, while the i5 is locked.

Integrated graphics present another distinction. The i5 has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A. The i9 includes UHD Graphics 770. ECC memory support also differs: the i5 does not support ECC, while the i9 does. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. Both use PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

The thermal design power (TDP) rating is 65 for the i5 and 150 for the i9. Release dates differ by roughly three months: the i5 launched on 2023-12-31 and the i9 on 2024-03-13. Both are Active in production status and target the Desktop market segment. Both use the Intel Socket 1700.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows no workload category where the i5-14490F outperforms the i9-14900KS. Every recorded test, from Cinebench multi-core to Passmark single-thread, favors the i9. The i5's only relative strength is in narrowing the gap. In Passmark single-thread, the i5 trails by 19.6%, which is the smallest deficit anywhere. This suggests that for lightly threaded tasks, the i5's 5.00 GHz boost clock keeps it comparatively closer, though still behind.

For heavily threaded workloads, the i9's advantage expands. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 54.9% lead, and Passmark multithread shows a 52.2% lead. The i9's 24 cores and 32 threads directly enable this margin. Data compression and encryption, which scale with core counts, show gaps of 57.7% and 61.8% respectively. The i9 also leads in single-core tests, though by smaller margins: 19.6% in Passmark single-thread and 54.9% in Cinebench R23 single-core. The single-core Cinebench gap is larger than the Passmark gap, indicating that the i9's 6.20 GHz boost clock provides a substantial advantage in that specific workload.

The i9's wins are consistent across synthetic workloads that stress different subsystems. Integer math, floating-point math, extended instructions, and prime number finding all show the i9 ahead by margins ranging from 50% to 58.7%. Physics simulation shows the smallest multi-core gap at 38.1%, but the i9 still wins decisively. The i5 does not win any of the 17 comparisons, so there is no use case in the recorded data where it takes the lead.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. Core count: 10 versus 24. Thread count: 16 versus 32. Base clock: 2.50 GHz versus 3.20 GHz. Boost clock: 5.00 GHz versus 6.20 GHz. TDP: 65 versus 150. Die size: 215 mm² versus 257 mm². L2 cache per core: 1.25 MB versus 2 MB. L3 cache shared: 24 MB versus 36 MB. ECC memory: false versus true. Integrated graphics: N/A versus UHD Graphics 770. Multiplier unlocked: false versus true. Part number: SRN35 versus SRN7R. Release date: 2023-12-31 versus 2024-03-13. The i9 has a launch MSRP of $689. The i5 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Shared specifications include the architecture (Raptor Lake), codename (Raptor Lake-R), process node (10 nm), foundry (Intel), L1 cache per core (80 KB), memory support (DDR4, DDR5), memory bus (dual-channel), PCIe (Gen 5, 16 lanes from CPU), socket (Intel Socket 1700), and market segment (Desktop). Both are Active in production. Both have no recorded transistor count, memory bandwidth, or vCache3d.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900KS has 24 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core i5-14490F has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two?

A: The i9-14900KS boosts to 6.20 GHz, while the i5-14490F boosts to 5.00 GHz. That is a 1.20 GHz difference in favor of the i9.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i9-14900KS has an average benchmark score of 81,127, placing it in the 96th percentile. The i5-14490F has an average score of 38,149, placing it in the 86th percentile.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: The i9-14900KS includes UHD Graphics 770. The i5-14490F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The i9-14900KS supports ECC memory. The i5-14490F does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the L3 cache size on each processor?

A: The i9-14900KS has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The i5-14490F has 24 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: In the head-to-head benchmarks, how many wins does each processor have?

A: The i9-14900KS wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The i5-14490F wins none.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core i9-14900KS dominates the Intel Core i5-14490F across every recorded benchmark. For workloads that demand high core counts, such as multi-threaded rendering or data compression, the i9's 24 cores and 32 threads provide a decisive advantage, with Cinebench R23 multi-core showing a 54.9% lead and Passmark data compression showing a 57.7% lead. For single-threaded tasks, the i9's 6.20 GHz boost clock still delivers a 19.6% edge in Passmark single-thread and a 54.9% edge in Cinebench R23 single-core.

The i5-14490F is not without merit in this comparison, but its strengths are relative rather than absolute. It trails by the smallest margin in Passmark single-thread, indicating that its 5.00 GHz boost clock keeps it competitive in lightly threaded scenarios. Its lower TDP of 65, compared to the i9's 150, suggests a more power-conscious design, though the recorded data does not include power consumption measurements. Its 10 cores and 16 threads still place it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, and its average benchmark score of 38,149 aligns closely with rivals like the Intel Core i5-13600KF (38,103, 0.1% delta).

The i9-14900KS, with an average score of 81,127 and a 96th percentile ranking, sits in a different performance class. Its nearest rivals, including the Intel Xeon w5-3535X and AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX, all score within 0.5% of its average. The i5's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T and AMD Ryzen 7 250, all fall within 0.3% of its average. The two processors are not direct competitors; they occupy separate tiers defined by core count, cache, and clock speed.

For users who prioritize maximum multi-threaded throughput and highest single-thread performance, the i9-14900KS is the only choice based on the recorded data. It also adds features like ECC memory support, integrated graphics, and an unlocked multiplier. The i5-14490F serves a different segment, offering a lower TDP and no integrated graphics, but it cannot match the i9 in any measured benchmark. The verdict from the data is unambiguous: the i9-14900KS is the superior processor in every recorded test, and the i5-14490F should be selected only when its lower power envelope and smaller die size are the primary considerations, since those characteristics are not reflected in the performance scores.