CPU Comparison: Intel Core i7-14700F vs Intel Core i9-10980XE @ 3.00GHz
Key Findings
- The Intel Core i7-14700F leads in single-threaded performance by up to 62.2%
- In multi-threaded workloads, the Intel Core i7-14700F shows superior performance with a 33.1% advantage
- The Intel Core i9-10980XE @ 3.00GHz has the highest core count with 18 cores
Performance Rankings & Market Position
Intel Core i7-14700F
Release Date
Q1 2024
Market Position
186th fastest in multithreading
4890 CPUs40th fastest in single threading
4890 CPUs53rd fastest in
1398 Desktop CPUs
Intel Core i9-10980XE @ 3.00GHz
Release Date
Q4 2019
Market Position
287th fastest in multithreading
4890 CPUs725th fastest in single threading
4890 CPUs89th fastest in
1398 Desktop CPUs
Performance
Single-Thread Performance
i7-14700F
4,302
3.00GHz
2,652
Multi-Thread Performance
i7-14700F
43,649
3.00GHz
32,787
Specifications: Intel Core i7-14700F vs Intel Core i9-10980XE @ 3.00GHz
💻CPU Model
Intel Core i7-14700F
i7-14700F
Intel Core i9-10980XE @ 3.00GHz
3.00GHz
🔄Other Names
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-14700F, Intel Core i7-14700F
i7-14700F
Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-10980XE CPU @ 3.00GHz, Intel Core i9-10980XE CPU @ 3.00GHz
3.00GHz
âš¡Base Clock
N/A
i7-14700F
3.0 GHz
3.00GHz
🚀Turbo Clock
N/A
i7-14700F
4.8 GHz
3.00GHz
💻Cores/Threads
N/A
i7-14700F
18 Threads: 36
3.00GHz
🔌Socket
FCLGA1700
i7-14700F
FCLGA2066
3.00GHz
âš¡TDP
65 W
i7-14700F
165 W
3.00GHz
💾Cache
L1 Instruction Cache: 8 x 32 KBL1 Data Cache: 8 x 48 KBL2 Cache: 8 x 2048 KBL3 Cache: 33 MB
i7-14700F
L1 Instruction Cache: 18 x 32 KBL1 Data Cache: 18 x 32 KBL2 Cache: 18 x 1024 KBL3 Cache: 25 MB
3.00GHz
The Intel Core i7-14700F and Intel Core i9-10980XE @ 3.00GHz compete in the Desktop segment. The Intel Core i7-14700F shows superior single-thread performance, making it better for tasks like gaming and light workloads.
For multi-threaded applications, the Intel Core i9-10980XE @ 3.00GHz takes the lead, despite having the same core count.
Power consumption differs significantly, with the Intel Core i9-10980XE @ 3.00GHz drawing more power under load (165W vs 65W). This may impact system thermal design and power supply requirements.