Intel Core i9-14900 vs Intel Core i9-14900F Comparison

Intel Core i9-14900F and Intel Core i9-14900 are two nearly identical 24-core processors from Intel's Core 14th Gen family, both built on the Raptor Lake architecture and manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process node. The database records 19 head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the two, and the results show a clear pattern: the Core i9-14900F wins 17 of those tests, while the Core i9-14900 wins only 2. This lopsided outcome is surprising given that both chips share the same core configuration, clock speeds, cache layout, and 65 W TDP. The only architectural difference is the presence of integrated graphics on the Core i9-14900, which the -F variant lacks. Yet the benchmark data reveals that the -F model consistently outperforms its counterpart in most workloads, sometimes by a wide margin. The following analysis breaks down those wins, the underlying architectural differences, and what the data suggests for different use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single-core victory for the Core i9-14900F comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 5583 against the Core i9-14900's 2212, a delta of 152.4%. That is not a typo: the -F model is more than 2.5 times faster in this specific test. Similarly, in Cinebench R15 single-core, the -F leads with 562 versus 315, a 78.4% advantage. These are massive gaps, and they are not isolated to Cinebench. In Geekbench single-core, the -F scores 2570 versus 2488, a 3.3% lead, and in PassMark single-thread, it scores 4506 versus 4323, a 4.2% lead. The data indicates that the Core i9-14900F has a consistent, measurable edge in single-threaded performance across multiple test suites.

Multi-core results are more mixed but still favor the -F. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the -F posts 39551 versus 31070, a 27.3% advantage. In Geekbench multi-core, the -F leads 20008 versus 18495, an 8.2% gain. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a narrower 4.4% lead (16611 versus 15910), and PassMark multithread also shows a 4.4% gap (46532 versus 44578). The one multi-core test where the Core i9-14900 takes the win is Cinebench R15 multi-core, where it scores 4793 versus 3986, a 16.8% advantage for the -F's rival. That is a notable outlier, as every other multi-core benchmark in the database favors the -F.

The Core i9-14900's other win is in PassMark floating point math, where it scores 120262 versus 119550, a 0.6% margin. That is a very slim lead, and it is the only other test where the -F does not come out ahead. Across the remaining benchmarks, the -F wins by margins ranging from 1.2% in PassMark integer math (177066 versus 175010) to 16.6% in PassMark physics (2899 versus 2486). Other notable -F wins include PassMark data compression (564207 versus 550271, 2.5%), PassMark data encryption (34644 versus 33540, 3.3%), PassMark extended instructions (31084 versus 30624, 1.5%), PassMark find prime numbers (209 versus 188, 11.2%), and PassMark random string sorting (63728 versus 61060, 4.4%).

Aggregating all 19 tests, the Core i9-14900F has an average benchmark score of 60008, while the Core i9-14900 sits at 58115. That is a difference of about 3.3% in favor of the -F. The -F also edges out its nearest rivals in the database, sitting 0.2% below the AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX and the AMD Ryzen 7 8745HX, and 0.6% above the AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX3D. The Core i9-14900, by contrast, sits 0.4% below the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M and 0.5% below the AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D. Both CPUs occupy the 92nd percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they are firmly in the top tier of desktop processors, but the -F is measurably the stronger performer.

Architecture Differences

At the silicon level, these two processors are essentially identical. Both use the Raptor Lake architecture, codename Raptor Lake-R, and are built on Intel's 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The die size is 257 mm² for both. Each has 24 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. The cache hierarchy is the same: 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is identical, with DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel memory bus, and both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is also the same, with Gen 5 and 16 lanes from the CPU. Both are locked processors, meaning the multiplier is not unlocked, and both are listed as active in production. They share the same release date of January 7, 2024, and the same 65 W TDP.

The single difference is in integrated graphics. The Core i9-14900 includes Intel UHD Graphics 770, while the Core i9-14900F has no integrated graphics at all. This is the defining architectural distinction between the two. The -F suffix typically indicates a chip without an iGPU, and this pair follows that pattern. The presence of the iGPU on the Core i9-14900 means it can drive displays without a discrete graphics card, a feature the -F cannot offer. However, the benchmark data suggests that the absence of the iGPU on the -F may affect performance in ways that are not directly tied to graphics output.

One possible explanation for the performance gap is that the -F's lack of an iGPU allows for slightly different power allocation or thermal behavior, though the TDP is identical at 65 W for both. The database does not record power draw or thermal measurements, so this remains speculative. What the data does show is that the -F is faster in 17 of 19 tests, including all single-core tests except one, and the margins are often substantial. The two chips share every other architectural characteristic, so the iGPU is the only hardware difference that could account for these results.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmarks, the Core i9-14900F wins decisively in single-threaded workloads. The Cinebench R23 single-core result, with a 152.4% lead, is the standout, but the -F also leads in Cinebench R15 single-core by 78.4%, in Geekbench single-core by 3.3%, and in PassMark single-thread by 4.2%. For tasks that rely heavily on single-core speed, such as lightly threaded applications, legacy software, or certain gaming scenarios, the data clearly favors the -F. The -F also wins in most multi-threaded tests, with particularly large margins in Cinebench R23 multi-core (27.3%) and PassMark physics (16.6%). This suggests the -F is the better choice for rendering, simulation, and other heavily parallel workloads.

The Core i9-14900's two wins are narrow and specific. Its 16.8% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core is the largest, but that is an older benchmark and an isolated result. Its 0.6% lead in PassMark floating point math is negligible. Outside of those two tests, the Core i9-14900 does not hold an advantage in any other recorded benchmark. The only practical use case where the Core i9-14900 wins is when a system needs integrated graphics. For a build without a discrete GPU, the Core i9-14900 can output video directly, while the Core i9-14900F cannot. That is a functional requirement, not a performance one.

For users who already have a discrete graphics card, the data shows the Core i9-14900F is the faster chip in nearly every measurable category. The average benchmark score of 60008 versus 58115 reinforces this. The -F also holds a higher position relative to its nearest rivals, with a smaller negative delta to the AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (-0.2%) and a positive delta over the AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX3D (0.6%), while the Core i9-14900 trails its nearest rivals by a larger margin.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i9-14900F outperforms the Intel Core i9-14900 in 17 of 19 recorded tests. The margins are decisive in several cases, particularly in single-core Cinebench tests and multi-core Cinebench R23. The -F's average benchmark score is 60008, compared to 58115 for the -F's counterpart, a difference of roughly 3.3%. Both chips sit at the 92nd percentile among all CPUs, but the -F is the stronger performer within that tier. The only functional advantage of the Core i9-14900 is its integrated UHD Graphics 770, which enables display output without a discrete GPU. For any system that includes a dedicated graphics card, the data suggests the Core i9-14900F is the better choice. For a system that relies solely on integrated graphics, the Core i9-14900 is the only option of the two.

The launch MSRP for the Core i9-14900F is $524, while the Core i9-14900 has a launch MSRP of $549. That price difference, combined with the performance advantage, makes the -F the more attractive option for most buyers. However, the database does not record pricing or value assessments, so this observation is limited to the stated launch MSRP figures.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900F has an average benchmark score of 60008, while the Intel Core i9-14900 has an average score of 58115.

Q: What is the biggest performance difference between the two?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core i9-14900F scores 5583 versus 2212 for the Core i9-14900, a delta of 152.4% in favor of the -F.

Q: Are there any tests where the Core i9-14900 wins?

A: Yes, the Core i9-14900 wins in Cinebench R15 multi-core (4793 versus 3986, a 16.8% lead) and in PassMark floating point math (120262 versus 119550, a 0.6% lead).

Q: Do both CPUs have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both have 24 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz.

Q: What is the only architectural difference between the two?

A: The Core i9-14900 includes Intel UHD Graphics 770, while the Core i9-14900F has no integrated graphics. All other recorded specifications, including cache, memory support, and process node, are identical.

Q: Which CPU should be chosen for a system without a discrete GPU?

A: The Core i9-14900, because it has integrated graphics and can output video, while the Core i9-14900F cannot. The data shows no performance advantage for the -F in this specific use case.