Why you can trust Tom's Hardware
The Core i5-13400 occupied a spot on our Best CPUs for Gaming list due to its then-superior blend of price and performance over competing Ryzen 5 processors. However, the 'new' $225 Core i5-14400 is merely a lackluster refresh of the same silicon and brings almost no meaningful real-world advantages over its predecessor. Meanwhile, AMD's competing Ryzen 5 7600X and Ryzen 5 7600 can be found at much lower prices now, and improvements to AM5 motherboard and DDR5 memory pricing have sharply reduced the price of entry to the AM5 platform, thus giving them the win over the Core i5-14400.
Intel's Core i5-14400 can't compete with the reduced pricing of the Ryzen 5 7000-series models, but it also faces pressure from AMD's new $245 Ryzen 5 5700X3D. This chip builds on the success of the company's X3D cache technology to deliver a stunning amount of gaming performance despite its prior-gen Zen 3 architecture. This chip does come with some tradeoffs in application performance, but it's a win for AM4 upgraders and those solely interested in gaming.
Below, we have the geometric mean of our gaming test suite at 1080p and 1440p and a cumulative measure of performance in single- and multi-threaded applications. We conducted our gaming tests with an Nvidia RTX 4090, so performance deltas will shrink with lesser cards and higher resolution and fidelity settings.
The $225 Core i5-14400 delivers paltry performance improvements across our gaming and productivity application test suite over the prior-gen Core i5-13400, if any at all.
The $210 Ryzen 5 7600X is 14% faster than the Core i5-14400 in 1080p gaming, and memory tuning adds another 5%. The 7600X is also solid in our productivity test suite — it's 6% faster than the Core i5-14400 in single-threaded work and 3% faster in multi-threaded applications, making it a solid all-rounder if you prize performance in productivity workloads. We use the Ryzen 5 7600X as a proxy for the Ryzen 5 7600, which weighs in at $190 and offers about 3% less gaming performance than the 7600X.
The $245 Ryzen 7 5700X3D is a whopping 30% faster than the Core i5-14400 in gaming and drops into the affordable previous-gen AM4 platform with DDR4 memory. This chip is powered by the previous-gen Zen 3 architecture, resulting in lower performance in productivity workloads. The 14400 is 10% faster in multi-threaded work and 27% faster in single-threaded applications, offering a much more balanced profile.
You can select DDR4 memory to lower the overall cost of a Core i5-14400 system while still receiving the same performance at stock settings, but vastly improved DDR5 pricing blunts the pricing advantages. The previous-gen Core i5-13400F is currently ~$185, but Intel recently retired a significant number of boxed 13th-gen chips, so it isn't clear how long the 13400 will be available. Regardless, the $190 Ryzen 5 7600 slots in to compete with the 13400.
Header Cell - Column 0 | Core i5-14400 DDR4 | Core i5-14400 DDR5 | Ryzen 5 7600X DDR5 | Core i5-13400F DDR4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Chip | $210 Core i5-14400F, $225 14400 | $210 Core i5-13400F, $225 13400 | $190 Ryzen 5 7600, $210 7600X | $185 Core i5-13400F |
32 GB Memory - Stock | $60 | $85 | $95 | $60 |
Compatible Motherboards (Median starting price) | B660 $130, B760 $120 | B760 $130, B660 $N/A | B650 - $125 | B660 $130, B760 $120 |
System - Minimum Total Cost / Cost per frame | $405 / $3.24 | $440 / $3.57 | $430 / $3.04 | $375 / $3.05 |
Chip only cost per frame | $1.83 | $1.83 | $1.50 | $1.50 |
We selected median low-end pricing for the motherboards and memory listed in the above table. You can find cheaper options, but be careful when selecting bargain-basement motherboards. You will want to do your research when you select B-series boards from both AMD and Intel, as they don't always provide robust enough power circuitry to support higher-end models. That could become an issue if you plan to upgrade to a more powerful chip in the future.
As you can see, the Ryzen 5 7600/X benefits from reduced DDR5 memory and B650 motherboard pricing — comparing to the same table at the end of our Core i5-13400 review highlights the drastic price improvements. The AM5 platform also provides forward compatibility with future Ryzen processors. As first-gen Ryzen buyers can attest when they upgrade to chips like the 5700X3D released just months ago, that's a powerful advantage if you plan on future upgrades. In contrast, Intel's current-gen platform has reached the end of the line.
You can opt for a DDR4-equipped Core i5-14400 system for the lowest possible system pricing, but stepping up to a DDR5-powered Ryzen 5 system is a worthy investment, given the superior system-level price per frame. The Core i5-14400 DDR5 system simply isn't as cost-effective as the Ryzen models in price-per-frame metrics. If you're focused on the lowest cost of entry possible, you can build a system around the previous-gen Core i5-13400F for less than the Ryzen 5 7600X, but the price-per-frame metrics match evenly. If possible, you should step up to the Ryzen system for faster performance and better forward compatibility.
You'll need to buy your own cooler for the Ryzen 7 5700X3D and Ryzen 5 7600X, while the Core i5-14400 comes with a bundled cooler. We advise 14400 buyers to purchase a ~$25 tower air cooler instead of using the stock cooler, so we consider cooler pricing a wash with these chips.
Overall, the Core i5-14400 isn't the best option for building a value system. The Core i5-13400F is a decent option if you're targeting the lowest possible system price, but the Ryzen 5 7600X and Ryzen 5 7600 are much better options with higher peak performance, similar cost-per-frame metrics, and the added benefit of forward compatibility that can be a benefit in years to come. If you're only interested in gaming, particularly for AM4 upgraders, the Ryzen 7 5700X3D is a compelling new entrant due to its 30% performance advantage in gaming over the Core i5-14400.
- MORE: AMD vs Intel
- MORE: Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 All We Know
- MORE: Raptor Lake All We Know
Current page: Refresh of a refresh woes
Prev Page Intel Core i5-14400 Productivity BenchmarksPaul Alcorn is the Managing Editor: News and Emerging Tech for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.
Raspberry Pi Monitor Review: Well-built portable monitor that works with any HDMI-capable device
Raspberry Pi 500 Review: The keyboard is the computer, again
Microsoft preparing Lunar Lake Surface and Surface Pro laptops for 1Q25, says report – new Surface Laptop Studio and an 11-inch Surface also on the horizon
-
-Fran- Snake oil? Le gasp!Reply
In any case, I have to say I'm surprised the perf/$ kind of sucks with this chip (not suck, but not beat AMD as it was the case). This was the last bastion for Intel to claim "superiority" from recent memory, so it's surprising.
Thanks for the review and great data, Paul!
Regards. -
usertests I didn't realize the 7600X was that far behind the 5000X3D CPUs.Reply
Seems the gap is wider than this review:
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-9-7950x-ryzen-5-7600x-cpu-review/6 -
edzieba Particular for DIY upgraders, the DDR4 aspect for Raptor Lake still likely makes it more attractive in total upgrade (CPU + mobo + RAM) perf/$. Even with DDR5 getting less expensive, it will still be more expensive than paying nothing to re-use your current DDR4 DIMMs.Reply -
TerryLaze
I'm just wondering, but what exactly is surprising about a company having to sell older technology for less money, or newer for more, anyway you take it.-Fran- said:Snake oil? Le gasp!
In any case, I have to say I'm surprised the perf/$ kind of sucks with this chip (not suck, but not beat AMD as it was the case). This was the last bastion for Intel to claim "superiority" from recent memory, so it's surprising.
Thanks for the review and great data, Paul!
Regards.
The 7600x was $300 when it came out...and now AMD is forced to sell it for 70% of that because of the x3d CPUs and the newer intel CPUs, even though it is current gen. -
rluker5 The 14th series pricing is not the best compared to older named products. You can buy the same chip, but faster, unlocked and at 2/3 the price at Newegg right now: the 12600kf https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-12600kf-core-i5-12th-gen/p/N82E16819118349Reply
It would probably beat the 7600x(at $210) for $155. A real world performance/price thrashing. Although you would have to buy a $20 cooler if you didn't already have one: https://www.amazon.com/Thermalright-Assassin-SE-Heatpipes-TL-C12C/dp/B09Y869Z8B/ref=sr_1_20?crid=2SX1Y3LFI5SQZ&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.oWn8-RfUPfvuDzeOWU8_36bSlzc8uRnTjORmhoO2C0vsUFZ2STUVF1WtAEnZKG4Z-zUmrifpulpSJuMlZsGSFeEKCMLhJtaGVL11yTUskSdNXF1vBh_BKnhNbXbFp3tXCfLhF5edknjQiEoY5HyH03kxieOlLxKUutlOXeloABhP1HFS0d8K3bcCwNERJBSq830llUJSSoS_NVuNQxFQtR_-9MBwMGiEx6rd9EcgLtA.GH6nMT41xmldgof1e-hTaPzaY_pNrkZhB5XDJ4IX1Mo&dib_tag=se&keywords=lga%2B1700%2Bcooler&qid=1713446673&sprefix=lga%2B1700%2Bcoo%2Caps%2C104&sr=8-20&th=1 -
Roland Of Gilead The base and boost clocks for the 14400/13400 are reversed in the first table.Reply -
strobolt I don't quite understand why the article mentions "adequate stock cooler" as a pro but then also within the article it's mentioned that "we always recommend upgrading the stock cooler". If the stock cooler is adequate then what's the reason for upgrading? I understand that some people who run very extensive multithreaded workloads and in warmer climate you might end up with excessive noise and even bottlenecking but the average gamer / productivity user in a airconditioned environment probably doesn't even notice the difference. And even in gaming when you want to run high fps, the GPU is likely going to make so much noise that the CPU cooler is not distinguishable anyway.Reply -
-Fran-
Saying the i5 14400 is "new" is a big stretch given is a toss between being a re-hashed Alder or a defective Raptor.TerryLaze said:I'm just wondering, but what exactly is surprising about a company having to sell older technology for less money, or newer for more, anyway you take it.
The 7600x was $300 when it came out...and now AMD is forced to sell it for 70% of that because of the x3d CPUs and the newer intel CPUs, even though it is current gen.
As for the price: Intel decided that price point, so they have only themselves to blame. I believe Intel thinks they can get away with people not doing their research (much like AMD does as well; 5700 non-G, looking at you) only looking at the price point relative to the rest.
That's what is surprising to me: why didn't Intel read the room and chose such a price point that would make them look bad. Weird. Are they with no other options anymore?
Regards.