Intel Core i5-14400T vs Intel Core i9-14901E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance advantage for the Intel Core i9-14901E across every single benchmark in the database. Out of 17 head-to-head comparisons, the i9-14901E wins all 17, with the Intel Core i5-14400T recording zero wins. The margin is substantial in most tests, though it varies considerably depending on the workload type.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the i9-14901E outperforms the i5-14400T by a consistent 33.3% in all six tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i9 scores 2595 against the i5’s 1732. The single-core R15 result shows 366 versus 244. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core score is 10816 for the i9 compared to 7219 for the i5, while single-core reads 1526 against 1018. Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers 25753 for the i9 and 17189 for the i5, with single-core at 3635 versus 2426. This uniform 33.3% delta across all Cinebench versions indicates a consistent architectural advantage that scales equally across rendering workloads, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded.

The PassMark suite reveals a broader range of deltas, with some tests showing much larger gaps than others. The largest disparity appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the i9-14901E scores 189 against the i5-14400T’s 73, a 61.4% difference. This test is particularly sensitive to integer arithmetic and branch prediction, and the i9’s advantage here is pronounced. Similarly, the PassMark physics test shows a 59.1% gap, with the i9 scoring 3041 versus the i5’s 1244. Physics simulations often rely heavily on floating-point throughput and memory latency, areas where the i9 clearly excels.

Floating-point math also favors the i9 significantly. The PassMark floating point math test records 81089 for the i9, compared to 49139 for the i5, a 39.4% margin. Integer math shows a similar pattern: 112736 versus 65667, a 41.8% gap. These results indicate that the i9-14901E delivers substantially higher arithmetic throughput in both integer and floating-point operations, which translates directly to faster performance in scientific computing, financial modeling, and other compute-intensive applications.

Data compression and encryption workloads show smaller but still meaningful advantages for the i9. In PassMark data compression, the i9 scores 288777 against the i5’s 235636, an 18.4% difference. Data encryption shows a 28.7% gap, with the i9 at 18571 and the i5 at 13244. These workloads often benefit from higher clock speeds and larger caches, both of which favor the i9.

Extended instructions, which test SIMD and other specialized instruction set capabilities, show a 15.6% advantage for the i9 (17249 versus 14562). Random string sorting, a memory-latency-sensitive workload, records a 35.7% gap (39138 versus 25181). The PassMark multi-thread score shows 30298 for the i9 against 20223 for the i5, a 33.3% delta that aligns closely with the Cinebench multi-core results.

Single-thread performance, as measured by PassMark single thread and singlethread tests (both identical at 4354 for the i9 and 3512 for the i5), shows a 19.3% advantage for the i9. This is notable because single-thread performance is critical for many everyday applications, including web browsing, office productivity, and legacy software that cannot utilize multiple cores effectively.

The average benchmark score in the database reinforces this hierarchy. The i9-14901E has an average benchmark score of 37911, while the i5-14400T sits at 27166. The i9 places in the 86th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the i5 places in the 79th percentile. This percentile gap, while modest, reflects the i9’s higher standing among all tested processors.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the i5-14400T benchmarks close to several other processors. The Intel Core i9-9900K shows an average score of 27097, just 0.3% behind the i5. The AMD Ryzen 7 5700G scores 27051, 0.4% behind. The Intel Core i7-13700H scores 27355, which is 0.7% ahead, and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355G scores 27382, 0.8% ahead. These tight margins place the i5-14400T in a competitive band with those processors, none of which approach the i9-14901E’s performance level.

For the i9-14901E, the nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 with an average score of 37904, effectively identical (0.0% delta). The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X scores 37943, which is 0.1% ahead. The Intel Core 5 211E scores 37829, 0.2% behind, and the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 scores 37804, 0.3% behind. This clustering indicates that the i9-14901E sits at a performance tier that is competitive with modern high-end processors, while the i5-14400T occupies a lower tier.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear picture: the Intel Core i9-14901E outperforms the Intel Core i5-14400T in every recorded test. The i9 is ahead by at least 15.6% in all workloads, with the largest gaps exceeding 60%. For users who need maximum compute throughput, whether in rendering, physics simulation, encryption, or general multi-threaded workloads, the i9-14901E is the stronger choice based on the recorded measurements.

The i5-14400T, however, is not without its merits. It consumes considerably less power, with a TDP of 35 watts compared to the i9’s 65 watts. This makes the i5 suitable for systems where heat dissipation and power draw are primary concerns, such as small form factor builds or passively cooled configurations. The i5 also has a lower launch MSRP of $221, which positions it as a more accessible option for constrained budgets, though the i9’s launch MSRP is not recorded in the database.

The i5-14400T’s 10 cores and 16 threads provide respectable multi-threaded performance, and its 79th percentile standing among all CPUs indicates that it is a capable processor in its own right. The i9-14901E, with 8 cores and 16 threads, delivers higher per-core performance, which is reflected in its superior single-thread scores. The i9’s boost clock of 5.60 GHz, compared to the i5’s 4.50 GHz, contributes to this advantage.

For workloads that are heavily single-threaded, the i9’s 19.3% lead in PassMark single-thread performance (4354 versus 3512) makes it the better option. For multi-threaded tasks, the i9’s 33.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core (25753 versus 17189) is similarly decisive. There is no recorded workload where the i5 closes the gap, so the choice between the two processors depends on non-performance factors such as power consumption and cost.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E has an average benchmark score of 37911, while the Intel Core i5-14400T scores 27166. The i9 also ranks in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the i5’s 79th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-threaded workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i9-14901E scores 25753 against the i5-14400T’s 17189, a 33.3% difference. The PassMark multi-thread test shows a similar 33.3% gap, with scores of 30298 and 20223 respectively.

Q: Is the i5-14400T ever ahead in any benchmark?

A: No. The database records 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the i9-14901E wins all 17. The i5-14400T records zero wins.

Q: What is the difference in single-thread performance?

A: The i9-14901E scores 4354 in the PassMark single-thread test, while the i5-14400T scores 3512, giving the i9 a 19.3% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i9 scores 3635 versus the i5’s 2426, a 33.3% gap.

Q: How does the i5-14400T compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The i5-14400T is within 0.8% of the Intel Core i9-9900K, AMD Ryzen 7 5700G, Intel Core i7-13700H, and AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355G in average benchmark score. The i9-9900K scores 27097 (0.3% behind), the Ryzen 7 5700G scores 27051 (0.4% behind), the i7-13700H scores 27355 (0.7% ahead), and the Ryzen 3 PRO 5355G scores 27382 (0.8% ahead).

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Yes. Both the i5-14400T and the i9-14901E support DDR4 and DDR5 memory, with dual-channel memory buses and ECC memory support.

Specification Differences

The Intel Core i5-14400T and Intel Core i9-14901E differ in several key specifications. The i5 has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the i9 has 8 cores and 16 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the i9 achieves higher performance through its clock speeds. The i5 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, whereas the i9 has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz.

Power consumption differs significantly. The i5 has a TDP of 35 watts, while the i9 has a TDP of 65 watts. This means the i5 draws less power under load, which may be advantageous in power-constrained environments.

Cache configurations also vary. The i5 has an L2 cache of 1.25 MB per core, while the i9 has 2 MB per core. The L3 cache differs more substantially: the i5 has 20 MB shared, while the i9 has 36 MB shared. Both have an L1 cache of 80 KB per core.

The integrated graphics differ between the two. The i5 includes UHD Graphics 730, while the i9 includes UHD Graphics 770. The die size also differs, with the i5 measuring 215 mm² and the i9 measuring 257 mm².

The release dates are different. The i5 was released on January 7, 2024, while the i9 was released on June 30, 2024. The i5 has a launch MSRP of $221, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the i9.

Both processors share several specifications. They both use the Intel Socket 1700, have a dual-channel memory bus, support DDR4 and DDR5 memory, include ECC memory support, and offer PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Both are built on a 10 nm process node at Intel’s foundry, and both have unlocked multipliers set to false, meaning they are not unlocked for overclocking. The part numbers differ: the i5 uses SRN3N, while the i9 uses Q49ESRNJH.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are based on the Raptor Lake architecture, with the codename Raptor Lake-R, and belong to the Core 14th Gen series using the Raptor Lake Refresh generation. Despite this shared foundation, the core configurations lead to different performance characteristics.

The i5-14400T uses a 10-core, 16-thread configuration that likely relies on a mix of performance and efficiency cores, typical for Intel’s hybrid architecture. The i9-14901E, with 8 cores and 16 threads, uses only performance cores, which explains its higher per-core performance despite the lower core count. This is reflected in the i9’s superior single-thread scores across all benchmarks.

The cache hierarchy differs substantially. The i9’s larger L2 cache (2 MB per core versus 1.25 MB per core) and larger L3 cache (36 MB versus 20 MB) provide more on-die storage for frequently accessed data. This reduces memory latency and improves throughput in cache-sensitive workloads, as evidenced by the i9’s strong showing in data compression and random string sorting tests.

The process node is identical at 10 nm, and both are manufactured by Intel. The die sizes differ, with the i9 measuring 257 mm² versus the i5’s 215 mm², indicating that the i9’s larger cache allocations require additional silicon area.

Both processors include integrated graphics, but the specific GPU models differ. The i5 has UHD Graphics 730, while the i9 has UHD Graphics 770. These are not benchmarked in the database, so their relative performance is not recorded.

Memory support is identical: both support DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel buses and ECC memory. PCIe support is also identical, with Gen 5 and 16 lanes from the CPU.

The i9’s higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz, combined with its larger caches, explains its consistent lead in both single-thread and multi-thread benchmarks. The i5’s lower TDP of 35 watts, however, suggests it is designed for power-efficient operation, which may be a priority in certain system builds. The architecture differences, while rooted in the same Raptor Lake design, produce two distinctly positioned processors: one optimized for maximum performance and another optimized for efficiency.