Intel Core 5 130UL vs Intel Core i5-14501TE Comparison

Intel Core 5 130UL and Intel Core i5-14501TE are two desktop processors built on the same fundamental Raptor Lake architecture, yet they target distinctly different operational profiles. The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark matches for these two parts, and neither processor has a recorded average benchmark score or percentile ranking beyond the baseline 50th percentile shared by all CPUs in the database. This absence of measured performance data means the analysis must rely entirely on the architectural and specification differences recorded in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either processor. The headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty, and the winsA and winsB fields both show zero. The avgBenchmarkScore for both CPUs is zero, and the percentileVsAllCpus for both is 50, which is the default placeholder value rather than a derived ranking. Without any measured performance data, a direct numerical comparison of multi-core throughput, single-core speed, or power efficiency cannot be established from the records.

What the data does show is a clear divergence in core counts and clock speeds that would influence any hypothetical benchmark outcome. The Core 5 130UL provides 10 cores with 12 threads, a base clock of 1.60 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The Core i5-14501TE provides 6 cores with 12 threads, a base clock of 2.20 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The thread counts are identical at 12, meaning both processors can handle the same number of simultaneous threads. The i5-14501TE has a higher base clock by 0.60 GHz and a higher boost clock by 0.40 GHz, which would favor it in lightly threaded workloads where single-core speed dominates. The 130UL has four additional physical cores, which would favor it in heavily threaded workloads that scale well across cores, provided the thermal and power envelope allows sustained operation.

The database records no wins for either processor in any benchmark category. The absence of data does not indicate a tie; it indicates a lack of measurement. Any statement about which processor would win a specific benchmark would be speculative and outside the recorded facts.

Where Each One Wins

Based solely on the recorded specifications, the two processors split potential advantages across different workload types. The Core i5-14501TE, with its higher base and boost clocks, would be expected to perform better in tasks that depend on low-latency single-thread execution. Applications such as interactive desktop use, lightly threaded productivity software, and tasks with short bursts of activity would benefit from the 5.10 GHz boost capability. The 2.20 GHz base clock also means sustained single-thread performance starts from a higher point compared to the 130UL’s 1.60 GHz base.

The Core 5 130UL, with its 10 cores versus 6 cores, would be expected to perform better in workloads that can utilize all available cores simultaneously. Rendering, video encoding, compilation, and scientific computing tasks that are parallelizable would have more physical cores to draw upon. However, the 130UL’s 15 W TDP is one-third of the i5-14501TE’s 45 W TDP, which may limit how long it can sustain maximum multi-core performance under heavy loads. The database does not include sustained power or thermal throttle data, so the real-world multi-core advantage remains unquantified.

The integrated graphics differ between the two. The 130UL uses Iris Xe Graphics 80EU, while the i5-14501TE uses UHD Graphics 770. The database does not record graphics benchmark scores, so no direct comparison of integrated GPU performance is possible. The 130UL’s Iris Xe branding suggests a higher-tier graphics solution, but without measured data, this remains an inference from the naming convention only.

Architecture Differences

Both processors use the Raptor Lake architecture and are built on a 10 nm process node at Intel’s foundry. The codenames differ: the 130UL is listed as Raptor Lake-PS, while the i5-14501TE is Raptor Lake-R. The generation fields also differ, with the 130UL classified as Core 5 (Raptor Lake-PS) and the i5-14501TE as Core i5 (Raptor Lake Refresh). This indicates the i5-14501TE is a refresh iteration of the Raptor Lake design, while the 130UL is based on the earlier Raptor Lake-PS variant.

The L1 and L2 cache configurations are identical: 80 KB per core for L1 and 1.25 MB per core for L2. The L3 cache differs substantially. The 130UL has 12 MB shared L3, while the i5-14501TE has 24 MB shared L3, exactly double the capacity. This larger L3 cache on the i5-14501TE would benefit workloads that repeatedly access a large working set of data, reducing main memory traffic. The 130UL’s smaller L3 cache might be sufficient for its target lower-power workloads but could be a bottleneck for data-intensive tasks.

The memory support is the same: both support DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The database does not record memory bandwidth figures for either, so no comparison of maximum theoretical bandwidth is possible. ECC memory support differs: the 130UL does not support ECC, while the i5-14501TE does. This makes the i5-14501TE more suitable for error-sensitive workloads such as file servers or data processing environments where memory corruption is a concern.

PCIe support differs significantly. The 130UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The i5-14501TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The i5-14501TE offers double the lane count and a newer generation, providing more bandwidth for discrete GPUs, NVMe storage, and expansion cards. The 130UL’s Gen 4, 8-lane configuration is more limited and would constrain high-bandwidth peripherals.

The die size is recorded only for the i5-14501TE at 215 mm². The 130UL has no die size recorded. The socket is identical: Intel Socket 1700 for both. The production status is Active for both. The release dates differ: the 130UL released on 2024-04-07, and the i5-14501TE released on 2024-06-30, approximately three months later.

The multiplier is locked on both processors, meaning end-user overclocking is not supported through multiplier adjustment. The part number for the i5-14501TE is recorded as Q49KSRNJN, while the 130UL has an unknown part number.

FAQ

Q: Do these processors have the same number of threads?

A: Yes. Both the Intel Core 5 130UL and the Intel Core i5-14501TE have 12 threads, despite having different core counts.

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Core 5 130UL has 10 cores, while the Intel Core i5-14501TE has 6 cores, making the 130UL the higher-core-count part.

Q: Is the L3 cache the same on both processors?

A: No. The Intel Core i5-14501TE has 24 MB shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core 5 130UL has 12 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core i5-14501TE supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 5 130UL does not.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core 5 130UL has a TDP of 15 W, and the Intel Core i5-14501TE has a TDP of 45 W.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i5-14501TE has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Core 5 130UL’s boost clock of 4.70 GHz.

Q: Do both processors use the same socket?

A: Yes. Both use Intel Socket 1700.

Q: What are the PCIe capabilities of each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 130UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The Intel Core i5-14501TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors, based solely on the database records:

• Cores: 10 (130UL) versus 6 (i5-14501TE)
• Base clock: 1.60 GHz (130UL) versus 2.20 GHz (i5-14501TE)
• Boost clock: 4.70 GHz (130UL) versus 5.10 GHz (i5-14501TE)
• TDP: 15 W (130UL) versus 45 W (i5-14501TE)
• Codename: Raptor Lake-PS (130UL) versus Raptor Lake-R (i5-14501TE)
• Generation: Core 5 (Raptor Lake-PS) versus Core i5 (Raptor Lake Refresh)
• Die size: not recorded (130UL) versus 215 mm² (i5-14501TE)
• L3 cache: 12 MB shared (130UL) versus 24 MB shared (i5-14501TE)
• ECC memory: false (130UL) versus true (i5-14501TE)
• PCIe: Gen 4, 8 lanes (130UL) versus Gen 5, 16 lanes (i5-14501TE)
• Integrated graphics: Iris Xe Graphics 80EU (130UL) versus UHD Graphics 770 (i5-14501TE)
• Release date: 2024-04-07 (130UL) versus 2024-06-30 (i5-14501TE)
• Part number: unknown (130UL) versus Q49KSRNJN (i5-14501TE)

Fields that are identical include: manufacturer (Intel), threads (12), socket (Intel Socket 1700), architecture (Raptor Lake), process node (10 nm), foundry (Intel), L1 cache (80 KB per core), L2 cache (1.25 MB per core), memory support (DDR4, DDR5), memory bus (Dual-channel), market segment (Desktop), production status (Active), multiplier unlocked (false), and launch MSRP (both absent from the records).

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates two processors with fundamentally different design priorities. The Intel Core 5 130UL is a 15 W part with 10 cores, a modest 1.60 GHz base clock, a 4.70 GHz boost clock, 12 MB of L3 cache, no ECC support, and Gen 4 PCIe with 8 lanes. The Intel Core i5-14501TE is a 45 W part with 6 cores, a 2.20 GHz base clock, a 5.10 GHz boost clock, 24 MB of L3 cache, ECC support, and Gen 5 PCIe with 16 lanes.

For workloads that demand high single-thread responsiveness, the i5-14501TE has the advantage on paper due to its higher clocks. For workloads that scale across many cores, the 130UL has more physical cores available. However, the 130UL’s significantly lower TDP may restrict its ability to maintain peak multi-core performance, and the database provides no measured data to confirm how each processor behaves under sustained load.

For systems requiring ECC memory or high-bandwidth PCIe Gen 5 expansion, the i5-14501TE is the only choice between the two. For low-power or thermally constrained systems where a 15 W envelope is required, the 130UL is the only option. The database does not include benchmark scores, so a definitive performance ranking cannot be stated. The i5-14501TE’s larger L3 cache and newer PCIe generation suggest it is positioned for more demanding desktop workloads, while the 130UL’s lower TDP and higher core count suggest a focus on efficiency in parallel tasks within a limited power budget. Neither processor has recorded benchmark data, so the choice between them rests entirely on the specification differences listed above.