AMD Ryzen 5 130 vs Intel Core i9-14901E Comparison

The Verdict

The database contains no benchmark scores for the AMD Ryzen 5 130, so no direct performance comparison can be made from recorded data. The Intel Core i9-14901E, by contrast, has a substantial set of measurements across Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and PassMark workloads. The Intel part holds an average benchmark score of 37,911 and sits at the 86th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The AMD Ryzen 5 130 has no recorded average score and holds the 50th percentile, which reflects the absence of data rather than a measured performance level.

For users choosing between these two parts strictly on available data, the Core i9-14901E is the only option with verified performance figures. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 at 37,904 (0% delta), the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X at 37,943 (-0.1% delta), the Intel Core 5 211E at 37,829 (0.2% delta), and the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 at 37,804 (0.3% delta). These near-identical scores place the Core i9-14901E in a tightly contested performance band, while the Ryzen 5 130 remains unmeasured.

The Ryzen 5 130 targets the mobile segment with a 28 W TDP, while the Core i9-14901E is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP. The Core i9-14901E offers more cores, more threads, a higher boost clock, and a larger cache pool. Without benchmark data for the AMD chip, the only defensible conclusion is that the Intel processor delivers verified multi-threaded and single-threaded results, and the AMD processor does not yet have any recorded measurements in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different manufacturers, nodes, and design generations. The AMD Ryzen 5 130 uses the Zen 3+ architecture with the Rembrandt-R codename, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core i9-14901E uses Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-R codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel.

Core counts differ significantly. The AMD part provides 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel part provides 8 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are close: the Ryzen 5 130 runs at 2.90 GHz, the Core i9-14901E at 2.80 GHz. Boost clocks diverge more clearly: the AMD chip reaches 4.55 GHz, while the Intel chip reaches 5.60 GHz.

Cache hierarchies are also different. The Ryzen 5 130 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Core i9-14901E has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Intel part carries more than double the L3 capacity and four times the per-core L2.

Memory support differs as well. The AMD chip supports DDR5 only, with a dual-channel bus and a recorded bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Intel chip supports both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, with no specific bandwidth figure in the database. Both parts support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity is not identical. The Ryzen 5 130 provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The Core i9-14901E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics also differ: the AMD part uses Radeon 660M, the Intel part uses UHD Graphics 770.

Socket and market placement are distinct. The AMD chip uses AMD Socket FP7 and is classified as a mobile part. The Intel chip uses Intel Socket 1700 and is classified as a desktop part. The Intel release date is 2024-06-30, while the AMD release date is 2025-09-30. Neither part has an unlocked multiplier, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No head-to-head benchmark entries exist in the database for these two processors. The winsA and winsB fields are both zero, and the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. As a result, there are no exact score comparisons between the Ryzen 5 130 and the Core i9-14901E.

The Core i9-14901E does have a full set of standalone measurements. In Cinebench R15, it scores 2,595 in multi-core and 366 in single-core. In Cinebench R20, it scores 10,816 in multi-core and 1,526 in single-core. In Cinebench R23, it scores 25,753 in multi-core and 3,635 in single-core.

PassMark results for the Core i9-14901E include data compression at 288,777, data encryption at 18,571, extended instructions at 17,249, prime number finding at 189, floating point math at 81,089, integer math at 112,736, multi-thread at 30,298, physics at 3,041, random string sorting at 39,138, and single-thread at 4,354.

The Ryzen 5 130 has no recorded scores in any of these tests. Its average benchmark score is 0, which reflects the absence of measurements. Any attempt to compare these two parts on a test-by-test basis would require data that does not exist in the database.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 5 130 have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database lists no benchmark entries for the Ryzen 5 130. Its average benchmark score is 0, and its percentile is 50, which reflects the lack of measured data rather than a performance level.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the Intel Core i9-14901E?

A: The Core i9-14901E has an average benchmark score of 37,911. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, scores 37,904, a delta of 0%. The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X scores 37,943, which is -0.1% relative to the Core i9-14901E.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E has 8 cores and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen 5 130 has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The AMD Ryzen 5 130 has a boost clock of 4.55 GHz.

Q: Which processor supports PCIe Gen 5?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The AMD Ryzen 5 130 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 130 supports DDR5 only. The Intel Core i9-14901E supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both use a dual-channel memory bus, and both support ECC memory.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-14901E wins on every measurable axis that has data. It has more cores (8 versus 6), more threads (16 versus 12), a higher boost clock (5.60 GHz versus 4.55 GHz), and a larger L3 cache (36 MB versus 16 MB). Its standalone benchmark scores confirm strong multi-threaded throughput in Cinebench R23 (25,753) and solid single-thread performance (3,635). PassMark results show high integer math throughput at 112,736 and floating point math at 81,089. The Core i9-14901E also reaches the 86th percentile among all CPUs, placing it well above the 50th percentile recorded for the Ryzen 5 130, though that latter figure is based on no actual benchmark data.

The AMD Ryzen 5 130 wins on power efficiency and platform specifics. Its 28 W TDP is less than half of the Intel part's 65 W TDP. It uses a 6 nm process at TSMC, compared to Intel's 10 nm process. The AMD chip also provides more PCIe lanes (20 versus 16), though at Gen 4 rather than Gen 5. Memory bandwidth is recorded at 76.8 GB/s for the AMD part, while the Intel part has no recorded bandwidth figure. The Ryzen 5 130 is a mobile processor, so it fits systems where low power draw and a compact platform are priorities. The Core i9-14901E is a desktop processor with a larger die (257 mm² versus 210 mm²) and a higher power envelope, indicating it is built for sustained performance rather than mobility.

For multi-threaded workloads such as rendering, data compression, or physics simulation, the recorded data points to the Core i9-14901E. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25,753 and PassMark multi-thread score of 30,298 provide concrete evidence of throughput. For single-threaded tasks, the Core i9-14901E again carries the only measured results, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3,635 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4,354.

The Ryzen 5 130 has no recorded wins in any benchmark category. Its only advantages are architectural: lower TDP, smaller process node, higher memory bandwidth figure, and more PCIe lanes. For users who require verified performance numbers, the Core i9-14901E is the only part with data to analyze. For users who prioritize power efficiency and mobile integration, the Ryzen 5 130 has the relevant specifications, but its actual performance remains unquantified in the database.