Intel Core 5 221E vs Intel Core i9-14901E Comparison

The Intel Core 5 221E and Intel Core i9-14901E are both 65 W desktop processors on the Intel Socket 1700 platform, but the benchmark data reveals two distinctly different performance profiles. The Core 5 221E takes 11 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark wins, while the Core i9-14901E secures 6. The Core 5 221E achieves a higher average benchmark score of 40144 against the Core i9-14901E's 37911, and it also holds a higher percentile ranking at 87 versus 86. These are close competitors in overall output, but the specific workloads where each processor leads point to different use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 221E demonstrates a clear dominance in multi-threaded rendering and integer-heavy workloads. In the Cinebench suite, it wins every single test, including the R15, R20, and R23 versions for both multi-core and single-core. The multi-core wins are consistent at a 0.7% delta, with scores of 2613, 10891, and 25933 in R15, R20, and R23 respectively, against the Core i9-14901E's 2595, 10816, and 25753. The single-core Cinebench wins are also uniform at 0.7% or 0.5%, with the Core 5 221E scoring 368, 1537, and 3661 across the three versions.

PassMark results reinforce this pattern. The Core 5 221E leads in data compression with a 12.3% advantage (324285 versus 288777), which is the largest margin of any benchmark in this comparison. It also wins in data encryption (19205 versus 18571, a 3.4% lead), extended instructions (18216 versus 17249, a 5.6% lead), and integer math (117813 versus 112736, a 4.5% lead). The PassMark multithread score also favors the Core 5 221E at 30510 versus 30298, a 0.7% margin.

The Intel Core i9-14901E, by contrast, wins in physics simulation, floating point math, and single-threaded PassMark tests. Its most significant victory is in PassMark physics, where it scores 3041 against 2230, a massive 26.7% lead. It also wins floating point math (81089 versus 79028, a 2.5% lead), random string sorting (39138 versus 37686, a 3.7% lead), and single-thread performance (4354 versus 4147, a 4.8% lead). The prime numbers test also goes to the Core i9-14901E, 189 versus 173, an 8.5% advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a common Intel 10 nm process node, a 257 mm² die size, and the same Intel Socket 1700 platform, but their internal configurations differ substantially. The Core 5 221E is built on the Bartlett Lake codename and offers 14 cores and 20 threads. The Core i9-14901E uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-R codename and provides 8 cores and 16 threads. This difference in core and thread counts explains why the Core 5 221E tends to win in multi-threaded workloads, while the Core i9-14901E compensates with higher clock speeds.

The Core 5 221E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core i9-14901E runs at a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, giving it a higher frequency ceiling. Both processors use 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, but the L3 cache allocation is different. The Core 5 221E has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core i9-14901E has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, a 50% larger pool that likely benefits workloads with larger working sets.

Memory support is identical: both support DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, and both support ECC memory. The Core 5 221E lists a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Core i9-14901E does not have a recorded bandwidth figure. PCIe support is the same, with Gen 5 and 16 lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics differ, with the Core 5 221E using UHD Graphics 730 and the Core i9-14901E using UHD Graphics 770. The release dates also differ, with the Core i9-14901E released on 2024-06-30 and the Core 5 221E on 2025-01-12.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows that the Intel Core 5 221E is the better choice for multi-threaded productivity and integer operations. Its 14-core, 20-thread configuration delivers wins across the entire Cinebench suite and in PassMark data compression, encryption, extended instructions, and integer math. The 12.3% lead in data compression is particularly notable, as is the consistent 0.7% edge in Cinebench multi-core tests. The higher average benchmark score of 40144 and the 87th percentile ranking also support this processor as the stronger all-around performer.

The Intel Core i9-14901E is the pick for physics simulation and floating point workloads. The 26.7% lead in PassMark physics is the single largest margin in this comparison, and the wins in floating point math, random string sorting, and single-thread performance indicate a processor that handles scientific and simulation tasks well. Its higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz and larger 36 MB L3 cache align with these strengths. The Core i9-14901E also holds a higher single-thread PassMark score of 4354 versus 4147, a 4.8% advantage.

For users prioritizing rendering, compression, and general multi-threaded throughput, the Core 5 221E is the stronger option. For users prioritizing physics, floating point, and single-thread responsiveness, the Core i9-14901E is the better fit. The average benchmark score difference of 2233 points (40144 versus 37911) favors the Core 5 221E, but the workload-specific wins are split clearly enough that the choice depends on the task mix.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core i9-14901E has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, compared to the Intel Core 5 221E's boost clock of 5.20 GHz.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core 5 221E scores 25933, which is 0.7% higher than the Intel Core i9-14901E's 25753.

Q: Which processor performs better in PassMark physics?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E scores 3041, which is 26.7% higher than the Intel Core 5 221E's 2230.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core 5 221E has 24 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 221E has an average benchmark score of 40144, while the Intel Core i9-14901E has an average benchmark score of 37911.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the Intel Core 5 221E comes in PassMark data compression, where it scores 324285 against the Core i9-14901E's 288777, a 12.3% advantage. This is followed by a 5.6% lead in extended instructions (18216 versus 17249) and a 4.5% lead in integer math (117813 versus 112736). Data encryption also goes to the Core 5 221E, 19205 versus 18571, a 3.4% margin. The Cinebench suite is entirely in favor of the Core 5 221E, with the R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests all showing a 0.7% lead (2613 versus 2595, 10891 versus 10816, and 25933 versus 25753 respectively). The R23 single-core test also shows a 0.7% lead (3661 versus 3635), while the R15 and R20 single-core tests show leads of 0.5% and 0.7% (368 versus 366, and 1537 versus 1526). PassMark multithread goes to the Core 5 221E as well, 30510 versus 30298, a 0.7% margin.

The largest win for the Intel Core i9-14901E is in PassMark physics, where it scores 3041 against 2230, a 26.7% lead. The prime numbers test goes to the Core i9-14901E at 189 versus 173, an 8.5% margin. Single-thread performance shows a 4.8% lead for the Core i9-14901E, 4354 versus 4147, and the random string sorting test shows a 3.7% lead, 39138 versus 37686. Floating point math also favors the Core i9-14901E, 81089 versus 79028, a 2.5% margin. The benchmark data indicates that the Core i9-14901E's wins are concentrated in scientific and single-threaded workloads, while the Core 5 221E dominates in multi-threaded and integer-based tasks. The Core 5 221E's 11 wins against 6 for the Core i9-14901E, combined with its higher average score and percentile ranking, make it the more balanced processor overall, but the Core i9-14901E's physics and floating point strengths are substantial enough to matter in the right applications.