OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core i5-14400F review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£160PassMark multi-core score:25797N. of physical cores:10CPU boost clock speed:4.7 GHzCPU socket:LGA1700TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i5-14400F Review: Compare 168 technical specifications, 7 expert and video reviews and 6 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i5-14400F
7.8/10

Overall score

Score
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists, owners and ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 15%, Sentiment score 10%, User score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 86% of models
Score components

40%

7.8

Technical score

25%

7.4

Reviews score

15%

8.3

List score

10%

8.2

Sentiment score

10%

7.8

User score

▲Better than 86% of processors
8.4

Value for money

Value for money
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 96% of models
Score components

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

★Better than 96%
7.8

Technical score

Technical score
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 82% of models
Score components

60%

8.0

Performance

18%

7.2

Architecture

10%

8.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.9

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 82%
7.4

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 54% of models

80%

7.1

Average grade

20%

8.4

Popularity

Grades by review (7)
5 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
▼Worse than 54%
7.8

User score

User score
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 58% of models

7.8

Mark 8.6 is below the typical mark 8.8 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

9.3

Rating

20%

5.7

Popularity

▼Worse than 58%
8.3

List score

List score
8.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 15% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (6)
List score: in 6 of 70 lists (9%)
★Better than 97%
  • intel-core-i5-14400f
intel-core-i5-14400f
Best prices
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i5-14400F

Technical score
Technical score
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 82% of models
Score components:

60%

8.0

Performance

18%

7.2

Architecture

10%

8.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.9

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

7.8
Reviews score
7.4
User score
7.8
List score
8.3
Value for money
Value for money
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 96% of models
Score components:

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

8.4
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1700
This processor uses the LGA1700 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 84.5% of processors and equal to that of 8.4% of processors.
Chipset
?
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 88.2% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
N. of physical cores
10
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 10 CPU cores, which is more than 75.2% of processors and equal to 4.6% of processors.
CPU threads
16
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 16 CPU threads, which is more than 69% of processors and equal to 14.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.7 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.7 GHz which is higher than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 4% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
6x 2.5 GHz & 4x 1.8 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 6x2.5 GHz & 4x1.8 GHz which is higher than that of 69.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
25,797
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 25,797 in PassMark, which is higher than 80.5% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 50.8% of processors and equal to that of 19.5% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 7
This processor is built on the Intel 7 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
L3 cache
20 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 20 MB which is larger than that of 78.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
L2 cache
9.5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 9.5 MB which is larger than that of 77.2% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
L1 cache
?
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5, which is newer than that of 77.1% of processors and equal to that of 10.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
4,800 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 4,800 MHz, which is higher than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-4800 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-4800 MHz, which is higher than that of 62.3% of processors and equal to 6.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
192 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 192 GB of memory, which is more than 82.2% of processors and equal to 6.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
148 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 148 W which is higher than that of 80.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
?
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel Core i5-14400F vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.57x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (13,410 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    13,410 vs 5,209
  • 2.25x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (25,797 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    25,797 vs 11,469
  • 45.7% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,726 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,726 vs 2,558
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raptor Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Raptor Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 54.8% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,376 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,376 vs 1,535
  • 4 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (10 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    10 vs 6
  • 10.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 54% of models

    80%

    7.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    5 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
    7.4 vs 6.7
  • 14.1% better value for money
    Intel Core i5-14400F has better value for money than the average processor (8.36 vs 7.3).
    8.36 vs 7.33
  • 13.9% higher sentiment score
    8.2 vs 7.2
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1700 vs FP5).
    LGA1700 vs FP5
  • 4 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2024 vs 2020).
    2024 vs 2020
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 2.57x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (13,410 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    13,410 vs 5,209
  • 2.25x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (25,797 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    25,797 vs 11,469
  • 45.7% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,726 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,726 vs 2,558
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 54.8% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,376 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,376 vs 1,535
  • 4 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (10 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    10 vs 6
  • 2 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    6 vs 4
  • 6.8% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x2.5 GHz & 4x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    6x2.5 GHz & 4x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2x higher bus transfer rate
    This processor has a higher bus transfer rate than the average processor (16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raptor Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Raptor Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 3.17x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (9.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    9.5 MB vs 3 MB
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • 2.22x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (20 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    20 MB vs 9 MB
  • 2.95x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (14.6 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    14.6 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • 3x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (192 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    192 GB vs 64 GB
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • 63.8% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (76.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    76.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 50% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4800 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    4,800 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 2.31x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (148 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    148 W vs 64 W
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 14.1% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (202 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    202 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • 2.31x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (148 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    148 W vs 64 W
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

5.0
The Tech Quest
≈ estimated
09/11/2025
Long-term test · 6 months of daily use
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-14400F is reliable for everyday editing and gaming, but at its current price it is hard to recommend.
6.0
eTeknix
≈ estimated
16/04/2024
Hands-on review · synthetic and 16 game benchmarks at 1080p
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-14400F is a small refresh that gains little, and AMD's Ryzen 5 7600 is the better value overall.
Overview video

What reviewers agree on

Based on 5 · 2

Reviewers like its gaming performance and platform support, but benchmark results underwhelm and there's no overclocking; power use divides opinion.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

6.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
23/02/2024
Lab test · Power limit tests
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-14400F is a 65-watt chip built on older Alder Lake silicon, so its speed depends on how strictly the motherboard enforces power limits.
9.0
charlestech.fr
✓ explicit
25/03/2024
Lab test · Office and gaming
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-14400F is a competent chip for office work and gaming, but it adds little over the previous generation.
7.0
neonarcade.fr
≈ estimated
02/07/2026
Lab test · Cooling and gaming
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-14400F runs cool with a good liquid cooler and doesn't hold back the graphics card in games, but it adds little over the 13th-gen model.
7.0
spaceart.fr
≈ estimated
02/07/2026
Test · Gaming and office work
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-14400F suits everyday gaming and office work, and stays cool with a liquid cooler, but heavy 4K editing needs a faster chip.
6.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
26/05/2025
Lab test · Compact PC builds
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-14400F is a cool, quiet 10-core chip that suits compact builds, though it isn't made for overclocking and needs a separate graphics card.

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i5-14400F

  • 10 cores and 16 threads handle several tasks at once.
  • The cooler is included in the box.
  • Single-core Geekbench score of 2376 keeps everyday programs quick.
  • 20 MB of L3 cache helps the chip reach data quickly.
  • Supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory.
  • Memory capacity goes up to 192 GB.

What we don't like about Intel Core i5-14400F

  • No integrated graphics, so a graphics card is required.
  • Boost power of 148 W means a decent power supply matters.
  • The multiplier is locked, so it cannot be overclocked.
  • Memory speed tops out at 4800 MHz.

Verdict

A home PC for browsing, office work and video calls does not need much more than the Intel Core i5-14400F. It has 10 cores and 16 threads, and its single-core Geekbench score of 2376 is strong for a chip this size. A 20 MB L3 cache and a 4.7 GHz boost clock keep everyday tasks quick. The cooler is in the box, so there is one less part to buy. DDR4 and DDR5 memory are both supported, which gives you a choice when picking a board. The trade-off is that it has no integrated graphics, so a graphics card is needed. Its 148 W boost power also means a good power supply matters. It fits someone building a sensible home PC who already has a graphics card or plans to buy one.

Compare Intel Core i5-14400F with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i5-14400F and other processors

No results found