Intel Core i5-14400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 7600X Faceoff: AMD Delivers a Value Beatdown

AMD vs Intel CPU Faceoff
(Image credit: Intel, AMD)

At first glance, the Intel Core i5-14400 versus the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X seems to be a bit of a mismatch. Going by MSRP pricing, the Ryzen 5 7600X is nearly $100 more expensive than the Intel CPU, which is a substantial difference in this price band. However, recent price cuts to the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X have brought it closer to the Intel Core i5-14400's price point, making this a heated duel for mid-range CPUs.

At $225, The Core i5-14400 is one of the more affordable offerings in Intel’s Raptor Lake Refresh lineup of 14th-generation desktop CPUs. It slots in just beneath the Core i5-14600K, which seems to be the logical competitor to the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X based on MSRP pricing. However, don’t underestimate the Core i5-14400, as our in-depth review shows that it is still a compelling CPU for gamers on a modest budget.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Hassam Nasir
Contributing Writer

Hassam Nasir is a die-hard hardware enthusiast with years of experience as a tech editor and writer, focusing on detailed CPU comparisons and general hardware news. When he’s not working, you’ll find him bending tubes for his ever-evolving custom water-loop gaming rig or benchmarking the latest CPUs and GPUs just for fun.

With contributions from
  • rluker5
    14400 is a locked Alder Lake rebrand. Such cherry picking in favor of AMD.
    So is the faster, unlocked, currently $150 on Newegg 12600kf. Which I would think that everyone would agree, at 3/4 the price, and able to use cheaper mobos and DDR4 delivers the value beatdown on AM5's best deal.
    Reply
  • Roland Of Gilead
    rluker5 said:
    14400 is a locked Alder Lake rebrand. Such cherry picking in favor of AMD.
    Well, not really. The stock 7600x beats the 14400 with no OC in most games. So, your point is kinda moot.

    What is impressive, is the 5700x3d beating both (for the most part), and from Zen3/AM4. Some legs left in the old girl yet! The 5700x3d is below 200 right now.
    Reply
  • rluker5
    Roland Of Gilead said:
    Well, not really. The stock 7600x beats the 14400 with no OC in most games. So, your point is kinda moot.

    What is impressive, is the 5700x3d beating both (for the most part), and from Zen3/AM4. Some legs left in the old girl yet! The 5700x3d is below 200 right now.
    Yes, really. This is a value comparison where the faster than 14400 at stock 12600kf (and more overclockable than 7600x) is in a lower price bracket: mid $100s vs low $200.

    The 5700x3D is a better deal for games, especially as a drop in, but that wasn't the point of this article was it? It was the 7600x (on AM5) putting a beatdown on current Intel in terms of value which it utterly fails to do when you choose a better option.

    The article could have been on the great deal of the 5700x3D and how the 7600x is still a terrible value compared to it and to Intel offerings for budget gamers, but it was misleading instead and tried to portray the 7600x as the best deal, which it isn't. It is just not the worst deal for budget gaming.

    Edit: As a longtime 5775c owner, it is easier to see the fading of the 5700x3d. Fans of it will continue to cling to the games it does well in, but more and more games that it drops back in will continue to pop up. A CPU's speed in some games is less useful when you have already finished playing them. After the newness has worn off, doing well in the relatively few "unoptimized" ones gets to be more important, as this number will only continue to grow. And it stands out a lot when you go from 200fps in a racer or scenery viewer to not being able to hold 60fps in really congested areas where you want to see what is going on even more.
    Not that it is a bad chip, and won't be good for a few more years, just that cache can only do certain things and not being able to deliver playable performance on a game you want to play outweighs epeen over oceanview framerates imo.
    Reply
  • jeremyj_83
    rluker5 said:
    Yes, really. This is a value comparison where the faster than 14400 at stock 12600kf (and more overclockable than 7600x) is in a lower price bracket: mid $100s vs low $200.
    12600KF is $150 and 7600X is $195 right now.

    rluker5 said:
    cheaper mobos and DDR4 delivers the value beatdown on AM5's best deal.
    Value yes but you are stuck on a dead platform and EOL RAM version. The fact that you can drop in a 9000 series and maybe a 10000 series is a bonus. Now throw on that DDR5 is going to be the RAM type going forward and overall prices will drop on that and eventually DDR4 will get more expensive.
    Reply
  • logainofhades
    For lower budgets, a DDR4 system can make more sense, as it gives you more money to put towards your GPU. If you can afford it, definitely go DDR5, but when every dollar counts, you want as much of your budget to go to GPU as you can, without cutting back too much, on CPU. Right now the best deal is 12600k/kf and ddr4 for such systems.
    Reply
  • rluker5
    jeremyj_83 said:
    12600KF is $150 and 7600X is $195 right now.


    Value yes but you are stuck on a dead platform and EOL RAM version. The fact that you can drop in a 9000 series and maybe a 10000 series is a bonus. Now throw on that DDR5 is going to be the RAM type going forward and overall prices will drop on that and eventually DDR4 will get more expensive.
    If you are on a budget it is better to avoid frequent upgrades. Going with a new CPU after a year or two when you absolutely don't need it is not a thrifty thing to do.
    Yes the 9x3d or 9950x will be much faster than the 7600x and you can save maybe half of the price over going to a similar upgrade on a completely new platform which is convenient for many, but that upgrade is close to the price as the entire platform costs of these budget builds and unless you have a top end GPU and misuse it by playing at low resolutions and settings you won't notice a difference. Which I don't like to say because I have a 13900kf and these new Arrow Lake chips are looking really shiny so I have even less justification to spend double that on a whole new platform with some 10k CUDIMMs, but it would be completely frivolous spending.

    Now, if you were trying to secretly upgrade without your wife knowing you would definitely have a better chance at getting away with it on AM5. Unless she heard to open task manager or something.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    jeremyj_83 said:
    Now throw on that DDR5 is going to be the RAM type going forward and overall prices will drop on that and eventually DDR4 will get more expensive.
    Yeah by the time prices drop enough for you to get a decent enough upgrade from ddr5 to ddr5 your mobo will not support the new speeds anymore.
    Unless you lose all of the price benefits by buying a very expensive mobo right now that will support the faster ddr5 rams at least with overclocking.

    For the EOL ddr4 mobo you bought what you bought and it will last for the next 5years at least (more like 7-8) at which point you can do a full upgrade.
    Reply
  • jeremyj_83
    TerryLaze said:
    Yeah by the time prices drop enough for you to get a decent enough upgrade from ddr5 to ddr5 your mobo will not support the new speeds anymore.
    Unless you lose all of the price benefits by buying a very expensive mobo right now that will support the faster ddr5 rams at least with overclocking.
    The cheapest DDR5 AMD motherboard right now are the A620s with pcpartpicker having the MSI Pro A620M-E being the lowest priced. Specifications on that motherboard says it supports RAM up to DDR5-6800 including those with 24GB DIMMs for the 7000 series and DDR5-6400 24GB DIMMs for the 8000G series. All of that is listed on the QVL. As always going beyond the official support spec for RAM speed will depend more on the CPU than anything else. Your CPU needs to a RAM controller that is able to handle that speed. Not everyone will be lucky enough to have that.

    TerryLaze said:
    For the EOL ddr4 mobo you bought what you bought and it will last for the next 5years at least (more like 7-8) at which point you can do a full upgrade.
    My current desktop I got in 2013 (hoping to upgrade this year) is a Haswell 4770k on DDR3. I wish I had waited an gotten onto DDR4 instead of being on the EOL DDR3. I personally won't go with a DDR4 system now as DDR4 is being phased out. Better to be on the newer RAM IMO. Now if you have a very slim budget then I understand going on the old RAM.
    Reply
  • DavidLejdar
    The iGPU sure is nice. Here it is running my second screen, as a sort of side-screen with e.g. movie on.
    logainofhades said:
    For lower budgets, a DDR4 system can make more sense, as it gives you more money to put towards your GPU. If you can afford it, definitely go DDR5, but when every dollar counts, you want as much of your budget to go to GPU as you can, without cutting back too much, on CPU. Right now the best deal is 12600k/kf and ddr4 for such systems.
    One way how to approach it, sure. The benchmarks here constantly show though, that the CPU can mean quite a difference in frames per second. So myself, when I was about to upgrade from a DDR3 rig more than a year ago, I put a bit more money down for AM5, to pretty much avoid a rather expensive GPU get bottlenecked by almost everything else of the rig. Of course, if I would have went with a RX 6900 XT or so, and with DDR4 rig, I could have had a more FPS in the past year (as the better GPU would have given more in such regard). But I still had a backlog of games to play, and now with upcoming next-gen GPUs, I should be able to make full use of such, and that without need to spend still almost the same as more than a year ago on a new MB, etc.

    Comes down to personal preference, in any case though. Like, when someone plays mostly only Counter-Strike 2, casually, then even a 4GB GPU and 5+ years old CPU seems to be still good enough.
    Reply
  • ManDaddio
    AMD late to the party as usual. Some people don't want to wait 2 years for prices to drop to upgrade. I'm being a bit facetious but still.
    This is the same issue AMD has with GPUs.
    Reply