AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX vs Intel Core i9-14900KS Comparison

The database pits an unusual pair against each other here: Intel's flagship desktop refresh and AMD's top mobile Dragon Range part. On paper they occupy different segments entirely, yet their aggregate scores sit close enough that the comparison raises interesting questions. The Intel Core i9-14900KS carries an average benchmark score of 81127, placing it in the 96th percentile of all recorded CPUs, while the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX posts 76212 for the 95th percentile. A one-percentile gap conceals a head-to-head record that is far more lopsided than those rankings suggest.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows the i9-14900KS winning 15 of 17 shared tests, and the margins are remarkably consistent across the Cinebench suite. Every Cinebench result, single-core and multi-core alike, from R15 through R23, lands at exactly 19.4 percent in Intel's favor: R15 multi-core 5140 versus 4305, R20 multi-core 21417 versus 17939, R23 multi-core 50995 versus 42713. Single-core follows the same pattern, with R23 scores of 7199 versus 6030. That uniformity is curious. When the same delta appears at every thread count, the gap is driven less by core count and more by per-core throughput and clock behavior.

Outside the rendering suite the margins widen further. Passmark Physics is the most extreme case: 3381 for Intel against 2168 for AMD, a 56 percent gap. Floating point math goes to Intel 31.1 percent ahead, 153975 versus 117453. Single-thread shows 4815 versus 3907, a 23.2 percent Intel lead, and integer math lands 8.9 percent apart at 212644 versus 195180.

AMD does win two tests, and both are instructive. Extended instructions scores 49823 for the 8945HX against 45524 for the 14900KS, an 8.6 percent AMD edge, and find prime numbers favors AMD by 6.9 percent, 262 versus 244. These are the only results where the Zen 4 part outperforms, and they hint at instruction-set and scheduler characteristics rather than raw clock advantages.

Context from the rivals list reinforces how tight the broader landscape is. The 14900KS sits effectively level with the Intel Xeon w5-3535X (81115, delta 0) and AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX (81103, delta 0). The 8945HX is nearly inseparable from the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX (76155, delta 0.1), and sits within 0.4 percent of both the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX.

Architecture Differences

These chips could hardly be built more differently. The 14900KS is a Raptor Lake-R design, codename Raptor Lake Refresh, manufactured by Intel on a 10 nm process, with a single die measuring 257 mm². The 8945HX is the Dragon Range implementation of Zen 4, fabbed by TSMC on 5 nm as two chiplets of 71 mm² each, packing 13,140 million transistors.

Topology diverges sharply. Intel pairs 24 cores with 32 threads using its hybrid layout; AMD delivers 16 cores and 32 threads of uniform Zen 4 hardware. Clocks tell a similar story: the 14900KS runs a 3.20 GHz base and a 6.20 GHz boost, against 2.50 GHz base and 5.40 GHz boost for the 8945HX. That 800 MHz boost advantage maps directly onto the uniform 19.4 percent single-core Cinebench deltas.

Cache philosophies split as well. Intel gives each core 80 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, with 36 MB of shared L3. AMD uses 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core but doubles the L3 pool to 64 MB. The larger L3 is one plausible explanation for AMD's wins in the extended instructions and prime-finding tests.

Platform details differ further. The 14900KS supports DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus, includes ECC support, and offers 16 lanes of PCIe 5.0 from the CPU with UHD Graphics 770 integrated. The 8945HX is DDR5-only, also dual-channel, with recorded memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, no ECC, but 28 PCIe 5.0 lanes and Radeon 610M integrated graphics. TDP is the starkest split: 150 W for the desktop part versus 55 W for the mobile part. Both have unlocked multipliers. Their launch dates are separated by more than a year, with the 14900KS recorded in March 2024 and the 8945HX in April 2025, which raises the question of how much of the gap reflects segment positioning rather than generational timing.

Where Each One Wins

The 14900KS owns nearly every workload category in the data. Rendering, physics simulation, single-threaded responsiveness, integer math, floating point, encryption (47717 versus 40836, a 16.9 percent gap), compression (803368 versus 677755, 18.5 percent), string sorting (89789 versus 78781, 14 percent), and overall multithread throughput (60012 versus 51405, 16.7 percent) all go Intel's way. If the use case is a rendering workstation, a high-refresh gaming rig where single-thread matters, or a physics-heavy simulation box, the data points squarely at the 14900KS.

The 8945HX claims two niches. Its 49823 extended instructions score suggests an advantage in software that leans on modern SIMD paths, and its 262 prime number result indicates strength in certain integer-heavy computational loops. Beyond raw scores, its profile matters: identical thread count (32), a much lower 55 W TDP, 12 additional PCIe 5.0 lanes, and double the L3 cache make it the more expansive platform despite being a mobile part. For a mobile workstation or a compact build where the 150 W desktop envelope is not available, the 8945HX delivers 95th-percentile performance anyway.

FAQ

Q: How large is the single-core gap between these two CPUs?

A: The 14900KS leads by 19.4 percent in every Cinebench single-core test, for example 7199 versus 6030 in R23, and by 23.2 percent in Passmark single-thread, 4815 versus 3907.

Q: Does the AMD chip win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, two. Passmark extended instructions goes to the 8945HX by 8.6 percent (49823 versus 45524), and find prime numbers by 6.9 percent (262 versus 244).

Q: Which CPU has more cores and which has more cache?

A: The 14900KS has 24 cores versus 16, both with 32 threads. The 8945HX has the larger L3 cache, 64 MB versus 36 MB, while Intel leads per-core with 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2.

Q: How do their power envelopes compare?

A: The 14900KS is rated at 150 W TDP as a desktop part; the 8945HX is rated at 55 W as a mobile part, roughly a third of the Intel figure.

Q: Where does each CPU rank against the full database?

A: The 14900KS sits in the 96th percentile with an average score of 81127; the 8945HX sits in the 95th percentile at 76212.

Q: Do both support PCIe 5.0 and ECC?

A: Both offer PCIe 5.0, but with different lane counts: 16 for Intel versus 28 for AMD. Only the 14900KS supports ECC memory.

Specification Differences

• Segment: Desktop (14900KS, Socket 1700) versus Mobile (8945HX, Socket FL1)
• Architecture: Raptor Lake-R on Intel 10 nm, 257 mm² single die, versus Zen 4 Dragon Range on TSMC 5 nm, 2x 71 mm², 13,140 million transistors
• Cores: 24 versus 16, both at 32 threads
• Clocks: 3.20 GHz base and 6.20 GHz boost versus 2.50 GHz base and 5.40 GHz boost
• TDP: 150 W versus 55 W
• Cache: 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core with 36 MB shared L3 versus 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core with 64 MB L3
• Memory: DDR4 and DDR5 with ECC versus DDR5 only without ECC, both dual-channel; AMD records 83.2 GB/s bandwidth
• PCIe: 16 Gen 5 lanes versus 28 Gen 5 lanes
• Graphics: UHD Graphics 770 versus Radeon 610M
• Release: March 2024 versus April 2025; launch MSRP for the 14900KS is $689, with no recorded figure for the 8945HX

The Verdict

The benchmark record is unambiguous: the i9-14900KS wins 15 of 17 tests, with margins ranging from 8.9 percent in integer math to 56 percent in physics. For a desktop where maximum throughput is the goal, rendering, simulation, or any single-thread-sensitive workload, it is the clear pick by the numbers. The 8945HX is not competing on that axis. It matches the 14900KS in thread count, delivers 95th-percentile performance at a 55 W TDP, doubles the L3 cache, offers 28 PCIe 5.0 lanes, and wins the two instruction-focused tests. Users who need desktop-class capability inside a mobile power envelope, or who win those two specific workload categories, get a chip that ranks just one percentile behind its desktop rival while doing so within a far tighter thermal budget. The 14900KS wins the benchmarks; the 8945HX wins the constraints argument. Which matters more depends entirely on the machine it has to live in.