CPU Comparison: Intel Core i7-14700F vs Intel Core i9-9980XE @ 3.00GHz

Key Findings

  • The Intel Core i7-14700F leads in single-threaded performance by up to 68.0%
  • In multi-threaded workloads, the Intel Core i7-14700F shows superior performance with a 36.5% advantage
  • The Intel Core i9-9980XE @ 3.00GHz has the highest core count with 18 cores

Performance Rankings & Market Position

Intel Core i7-14700F

Desktop
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 i9-9980XE @ 3.00GHz

Desktop
Release Date
Q4 2018
Market Position
299th fastest in multithreading
4890 CPUs808th fastest in single threading
4890 CPUs94th fastest in
1398 Desktop CPUs

Performance

Single-Thread Performance

i7-14700F
4,302
3.00GHz
2,560

Multi-Thread Performance

i7-14700F
43,649
3.00GHz
31,979

Specifications: Intel Core i7-14700F vs Intel Core i9-9980XE @ 3.00GHz

💻CPU Model
Intel Core i7-14700F
i7-14700F
Intel Core i9-9980XE @ 3.00GHz
3.00GHz
🔄Other Names
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-14700F, Intel Core i7-14700F
i7-14700F
Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-9980XE CPU @ 3.00GHz
3.00GHz
⚡Base Clock
N/A
i7-14700F
3.0 GHz
3.00GHz
🚀Turbo Clock
N/A
i7-14700F
4.5 GHz
3.00GHz
💻Cores/Threads
N/A
i7-14700F
18 Threads: 36
3.00GHz
🔌Socket
FCLGA1700
i7-14700F
FCLGA2066
3.00GHz
⚡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 i9-9980XE @ 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 i9-9980XE @ 3.00GHz takes the lead, despite having the same core count.

Power consumption differs significantly, with the Intel Core i9-9980XE @ 3.00GHz drawing more power under load (165W vs 65W). This may impact system thermal design and power supply requirements.