AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 vs Intel Core i9-14901E Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor delivers the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E records an average benchmark score of 37911, while the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 scores 34222. The Intel part sits in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, and the AMD part sits in the 84th percentile.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each processor according to the database?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 7 350's nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 4244P with an average score of 34220 and a delta of 0%. The Intel Core i9-14901E's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 with an average score of 37904 and a delta of 0%.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E boosts to 5.60 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 boosts to 5.00 GHz. The Intel chip also has a higher base clock at 2.80 GHz versus 2.00 GHz.

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E wins 13 of the 15 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 wins only 2, specifically in data compression and extended instructions.

Q: How do the two chips differ in memory support and ECC?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a recorded bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, and it does not support ECC. The Intel Core i9-14901E supports DDR4 and DDR5, has no recorded memory bandwidth figure, and supports ECC.

Q: What process nodes do the two processors use?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core i9-14901E uses a 10 nm process from Intel.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 is built on the Zen 5 architecture under the codename Krackan Point, part of the Ryzen AI 300 generation that mixes Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 195 mm². The Intel Core i9-14901E uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the codename Raptor Lake-R, part of the Core i9 Raptor Lake Refresh generation, and is produced on Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 257 mm².

Both processors have 8 cores and 16 threads, but the cache layouts differ substantially. The AMD chip carries 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of L3 cache. The Intel chip also has 80 KB of L1 per core but doubles the L2 to 2 MB per core and provides 36 MB of shared L3 cache. That larger L3 pool is a major structural advantage for the Intel part in workloads that repeatedly access a working set larger than 8 MB.

The AMD processor integrates Radeon 860M graphics and supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory across a dual-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel processor integrates UHD Graphics 770 and supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, but no memory bandwidth figure is recorded. The AMD chip also supports PCIe Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Intel chip supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. ECC memory is supported only on the Intel part.

The AMD part is a mobile segment chip on AMD Socket FP8 with a 28 W TDP, while the Intel part is a desktop segment chip on Intel Socket 1700 with a 65 W TDP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD part was released on 2025-01-05, and the Intel part was released on 2024-06-30.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core i9-14901E dominates the Cinebench results. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Intel chip scores 25753 against 16014.5 for the AMD chip, a delta of -37.8% from the AMD perspective, meaning the AMD part trails by roughly 38%. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the Intel chip scores 3635 against 1958, a delta of -46.1%. Cinebench R15 multicore shows a narrower gap: 2595 versus 2477, a delta of -4.5%. Cinebench R15 singlecore goes to Intel at 366 versus 294, a delta of -19.7%.

PassMark integer math heavily favors Intel: 112736 versus 85651, a delta of -24%. Floating point math also goes to Intel at 81089 versus 53230, a delta of -34.4%. The PassMark physics test shows the largest proportional gap of the suite, with Intel at 3041 versus AMD at 1349, a delta of -55.6%. Prime number finding follows a similar pattern, with Intel at 189 versus AMD at 80, a delta of -57.7%. PassMark multithread puts Intel at 30298 versus AMD at 24935, a delta of -17.7%. Random string sorting goes to Intel at 39138 versus 33266, a delta of -15%. Single-thread performance favors Intel at 4354 versus 3834, a delta of -11.9%. Data encryption also favors Intel at 18571 versus 15244, a delta of -17.9%.

The AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 claims two wins. In data compression, AMD scores 304089 against Intel's 288777, a delta of 5.3%. In extended instructions, AMD scores 21678 against Intel's 17249, a delta of 25.7%. These two wins show that AMD's Zen 5 design is not universally slower despite the overall average score deficit, but they are isolated victories in a benchmark set where Intel leads in 13 of 15 tests.

The average benchmark score gap reinforces the head-to-head pattern. Intel's 37911 average is roughly 10.8% higher than AMD's 34222, and the nearest-rival data places each chip in a different performance tier. The AMD part sits alongside the AMD EPYC 4244P at 34220 and the Intel Core i5-13450HX at 34333, while the Intel part sits alongside the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 at 37904 and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X at 37943.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification field. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Core i9-14901E has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. TDP differs by more than a factor of two: 28 W for AMD versus 65 W for Intel.

The AMD chip uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel chip uses Intel Socket 1700. The process nodes differ as noted: 4 nm TSMC versus 10 nm Intel. Die size is 195 mm² for AMD and 257 mm² for Intel. L2 cache is 1 MB per core for AMD and 2 MB per core for Intel, and L3 cache is 8 MB for AMD versus 36 MB shared for Intel. L1 cache is identical at 80 KB per core.

Memory support diverges: AMD supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a recorded bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5 with no recorded bandwidth. ECC memory is absent on the AMD part and present on the Intel part. PCIe generation differs: Gen 4 with 16 lanes for AMD, Gen 5 with 16 lanes for Intel. Integrated graphics differ: Radeon 860M for AMD versus UHD Graphics 770 for Intel. The market segment differs: mobile for AMD, desktop for Intel. The release dates also differ: 2025-01-05 for AMD and 2024-06-30 for Intel.

The part numbers are 100-000001601 for AMD and Q49ESRNJH for Intel. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the Intel Core i9-14901E as the stronger processor for most compute-bound tasks. It wins 13 of 15 head-to-head benchmarks, holds a higher average benchmark score (37911 versus 34222), and lands in the 86th percentile versus the AMD part's 84th percentile. The Cinebench R23 multicore result is the clearest signal: 25753 versus 16014.5, a 37.8% deficit for AMD. Single-thread performance also favors Intel by 11.9% in PassMark and by 46.1% in Cinebench R23 singlecore.

The AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 is not without merit. It wins data compression by 5.3% and extended instructions by 25.7%, and it does so while consuming a 28 W TDP against Intel's 65 W TDP. That efficiency gap is substantial, and the mobile socket designation suggests the AMD part is aimed at notebooks, where thermal and power constraints matter more than raw throughput. The Intel part, by contrast, is a desktop chip with a 65 W TDP, a larger 257 mm² die, and a 36 MB L3 cache that likely explains much of its advantage in cache-sensitive workloads.

Buyers choosing between these two should weigh the performance profile against the platform context. The Intel Core i9-14901E delivers the higher scores across nearly every benchmark category in the database, including the largest gaps in physics, prime number finding, and floating point math. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 delivers a narrower set of wins but with a far lower TDP and a more recent release date. The data does not support a single universal recommendation; it supports a clear split between peak performance and power efficiency.