Intel Core i7-14700F vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database records two Intel processors aimed at different physical realities: the Core i7-14700F is a desktop chip on Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 336H is a mobile part on BGA 2540. The recorded data shows the i7-14700F wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head tests, with the Core Ultra 5 336H taking only 2. The average benchmark score difference is substantial: 53620 for the i7-14700F versus 34485 for the Ultra 5 336H, a gap of roughly 55%. The i7-14700F sits at the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 5 336H sits at the 84th percentile.

For desktop builders, the i7-14700F is the clear choice. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 35122 versus 23991 for the Ultra 5 336H represents a 46.4% advantage. The i7 also leads in passmark integer math by 151%, data compression by 80.5%, and random string sorting by 62.5%. These are large, consistent wins across rendering, encryption, and general compute workloads.

For mobile users, the Ultra 5 336H has its own rationale. It uses a 3 nm process node versus 10 nm for the i7-14700F, and it carries Intel Xe3 integrated graphics, something the i7-14700F lacks entirely. Its 25 W TDP versus 65 W for the desktop part makes it suitable for thin laptops. The data shows the Ultra 5 336H wins in passmark physics (2682 versus 2455, an 8.5% margin) and in passmark find prime numbers (299 versus 176, a 41.1% margin). These wins, however, do not offset the overall multicore dominance of the i7-14700F.

The verdict from the data: desktop users who need maximum throughput should select the i7-14700F. Mobile users who need integrated graphics and power efficiency should select the Ultra 5 336H, accepting lower raw performance in most tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700F records an average benchmark score of 53620, compared to 34485 for the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H. The i7-14700F also ranks at the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 5 336H ranks at the 84th percentile.

Q: How large is the multicore performance gap in Cinebench?

A: In Cinebench R23 multicore, the i7-14700F scores 35122 versus 23991 for the Ultra 5 336H, a 46.4% advantage. The same 46.4% delta appears consistently across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore and singlecore tests.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 5 336H win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the data records two wins. In passmark physics, the Ultra 5 336H scores 2682 versus 2455 for the i7-14700F, an 8.5% margin. In passmark find prime numbers, it scores 299 versus 176, a 41.1% margin.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The i7-14700F supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Ultra 5 336H also has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the i7-14700F has no recorded memory bandwidth figure.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Core Ultra 5 336H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. The i7-14700F lists integrated graphics as N/A, meaning it requires a discrete graphics card.

Q: What are the socket and form factor differences?

A: The i7-14700F uses Intel Socket 1700 and is a desktop part. The Ultra 5 336H uses Intel BGA 2540 and is a mobile part. The i7-14700F supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 5 336H supports PCIe Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures. The i7-14700F is built on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, part of the Core 14th Gen series. The Ultra 5 336H uses Panther Lake, part of the Core Ultra Series 3, with the Panther Lake-H generation designation. These are not minor revisions; they represent different design generations with different process nodes.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The i7-14700F uses a 10 nm process node, while the Ultra 5 336H uses a 3 nm node. Both are fabricated by Intel, but the 3 nm node is a newer, denser process. The die size for the i7-14700F is recorded as 257 mm², while the Ultra 5 336H has no die size recorded.

Cache architecture shows notable differences. The i7-14700F has an L1 cache of 80 KB per core, L2 of 2 MB per core, and L3 of 33 MB shared. The Ultra 5 336H has a larger L1 at 192 KB per core, larger L2 at 2.5 MB per core, but a smaller L3 at 18 MB shared. The larger per-core L1 and L2 on the Ultra 5 336H suggest a different core design philosophy, likely related to the Panther Lake microarchitecture.

The integrated graphics situation is a major architectural split. The i7-14700F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A. The Ultra 5 336H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. This reflects the mobile target, where discrete GPUs are less common.

Memory support differs as well. The i7-14700F supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Ultra 5 336H records a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The i7-14700F supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 5 336H does not.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ meaningfully. The i7-14700F has 20 cores and 28 threads, while the Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The i7-14700F benefits from hyperthreading, which the Ultra 5 336H does not appear to use given equal core and thread counts.

Clock speeds favor the desktop part. The i7-14700F has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The Ultra 5 336H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The i7-14700F is also faster in single-threaded tests, scoring 4257 in passmark single thread versus 4013 for the Ultra 5 336H, a 6.1% advantage.

Power envelopes differ substantially. The i7-14700F has a TDP of 65 W, while the Ultra 5 336H has a TDP of 25 W. This reflects the desktop versus mobile form factor. The i7-14700F is not multiplier unlocked, and neither is the Ultra 5 336H.

PCIe lanes differ: the i7-14700F provides 16 CPU lanes of Gen 5, while the Ultra 5 336H provides 12 CPU lanes of Gen 5. Both are dual-channel memory designs.

The release dates show the i7-14700F launched in January 2024, while the Ultra 5 336H launched in January 2026. The i7-14700F has a launch MSRP of $359; the Ultra 5 336H has no recorded launch MSRP.

ECC support is exclusive to the i7-14700F. The Ultra 5 336H does not support ECC memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a dominant performance profile for the i7-14700F across nearly every test category. The Cinebench suite is uniform: every test, from R15 to R23, in both singlecore and multicore, shows the same 46.4% delta in favor of the i7-14700F. This consistency suggests a fundamental throughput advantage rather than workload-specific behavior.

The largest single delta is in passmark integer math, where the i7-14700F scores 155808 versus 62070 for the Ultra 5 336H, a 151% difference. This is the biggest recorded gap in the entire comparison. Integer math is a core CPU workload, and such a large margin indicates that the i7-14700F's extra cores and threads translate directly into arithmetic throughput.

Passmark data compression shows the next largest gap at 80.5%, with the i7-14700F scoring 505885 versus 280340. Random string sorting follows at 62.5%, with scores of 55918 versus 34402. These tests favor the i7-14700F's larger L3 cache and higher thread count.

Passmark data encryption shows a 41.6% advantage for the i7-14700F, scoring 30144 versus 21291. Floating point math shows a 29.8% advantage, with 107005 versus 82415. Extended instructions show a 16.4% advantage, with 28564 versus 24542. Passmark multithread shows a 44.7% advantage, with 41317 versus 28545.

The two wins for the Ultra 5 336H are interesting. In passmark physics, it scores 2682 versus 2455, an 8.5% margin. In passmark find prime numbers, it scores 299 versus 176, a 41.1% margin. The prime number test often responds to single-core efficiency and cache behavior, and the Ultra 5 336H's larger L1 and L2 per core may explain this result. The physics test may also favor the newer architecture.

Single-threaded performance is close. The i7-14700F scores 4257 versus 4013, a 6.1% margin. This is smaller than the multicore deltas but still favors the desktop part.

Where Each One Wins

The i7-14700F wins in every multicore-heavy scenario. Cinebench R23 multicore at 35122 versus 23991 means rendering workloads favor the desktop chip by a wide margin. Data compression, integer math, and floating point math all show large advantages. For desktop workstations handling video encoding, 3D rendering, or scientific computations, the i7-14700F is the stronger performer in the recorded data.

The Ultra 5 336H wins in two specific areas. Passmark physics at 2682 versus 2455 indicates a better result in physics simulations, though the margin is modest. Passmark find prime numbers at 299 versus 176 shows a 41.1% advantage, which may indicate better handling of certain algorithmic workloads. These wins suggest the Panther Lake architecture has strengths in specific computational patterns despite lower overall throughput.

The data also shows clear use-case separation based on form factor. The i7-14700F is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP, requiring a discrete GPU. The Ultra 5 336H is a mobile part with a 25 W TDP and integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics. The Ultra 5 336H also supports LPDDR5X memory, which is common in thin laptops. The i7-14700F supports ECC memory and DDR4, which are useful in workstation environments.

The percentile data reinforces this split. The i7-14700F at the 91st percentile of all CPUs is a high-performing desktop option. The Ultra 5 336H at the 84th percentile is still respectable for a mobile part, especially one with integrated graphics. The nearest rivals for the i7-14700F include the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X with an average score of 53288, a 0.6% delta. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 5 336H include the Intel Core i7-13700HX at 34554, a 0.2% delta, showing it competes well within its mobile class.

The final split from the data: choose the i7-14700F for maximum compute throughput in a desktop system, especially for rendering, compression, and integer-heavy tasks. Choose the Ultra 5 336H for a mobile system where integrated graphics, a 25 W TDP, and LPDDR5X support matter more than raw benchmark scores. The two processors serve different physical and thermal realities, and the data reflects those distinct design goals.