Intel Core 5 223PE vs Intel Core i9-14901E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a close split between these two desktop processors, with the Intel Core 5 223PE winning 9 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons and the Intel Core i9-14901E winning 8. The overall average benchmark scores reflect this: the Core 5 223PE averages 40585, while the i9-14901E averages 37911, a difference of roughly 7%.

The most decisive victories for the Core 5 223PE come in specific PassMark workloads. In data compression, it scores 346623 against 288777, a 20% lead. Extended instructions show an even larger gap: 24672 versus 17249, a 43% advantage. These are substantial margins that indicate the Bartlett Lake part handles encryption-adjacent and instruction-heavy tasks more efficiently.

Across the Cinebench suite, the Core 5 223PE wins every iteration, but by a narrow margin. In R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core scores favor the Core 5 223PE by approximately 2.7 to 2.8%. For example, Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 26455 against 25753, and single-core shows 3734 against 3635. The PassMark multi-thread test also goes to the Core 5 223PE, with 31124 versus 30298, a 2.7% edge.

The i9-14901E counters with wins in raw arithmetic and physics workloads. Integer math favors it heavily: 112736 versus 99819, an 11.5% lead. Floating point math goes its way too, 81089 versus 76468, a 5.7% margin. The physics test shows the largest single delta for the i9-14901E, 3041 versus 2493, an 18% advantage. Prime number finding also favors the i9-14901E, 189 versus 159, a 15.9% gap. Random string sorting goes to the i9-14901E by 8.5%, and single-thread PassMark shows it ahead by 3.1%, 4354 versus 4219. Data encryption is nearly a tie, with the i9-14901E ahead by just 0.7%.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's 10 nm process and use the Intel Socket 1700 platform. The Core 5 223PE comes from the Bartlett Lake family, while the i9-14901E is part of the Core 14th Gen series with the Raptor Lake-R codename. Both chips have 8 cores and 16 threads, and both are configured identically in terms of L1 and L2 cache: 80 KB per core and 2 MB per core respectively. The L3 cache differs, however. The Core 5 223PE has 24 MB shared, while the i9-14901E has 36 MB shared, a 50% larger pool.

The die size for the i9-14901E is recorded at 257 mm². The Core 5 223PE does not have a die size listed in the database. Both processors support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode, and both support ECC memory. The Core 5 223PE has a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the i9-14901E does not have a bandwidth figure in the data. PCIe connectivity is the same for both: Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics differ slightly, with the Core 5 223PE using UHD Graphics 730 and the i9-14901E using UHD Graphics 770. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Clock speeds show a trade-off. The Core 5 223PE has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The i9-14901E has a lower base clock of 2.80 GHz but a higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz. Both are rated at 65 W TDP.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 223PE averages 40585 across all recorded benchmarks, while the Intel Core i9-14901E averages 37911. The Core 5 223PE also sits at the 87th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 86th percentile for the i9-14901E.

Q: Does the larger L3 cache on the i9-14901E translate into wins?

A: The i9-14901E has 36 MB of L3 cache versus 24 MB on the Core 5 223PE, and it does win several cache-sensitive workloads. It leads in integer math, floating point math, physics, prime number finding, random string sorting, and single-thread PassMark. However, the Core 5 223PE wins in Cinebench tests and data compression despite the smaller cache.

Q: How do the boost clocks compare?

A: The i9-14901E boosts to 5.60 GHz, which is 0.40 GHz higher than the Core 5 223PE's 5.20 GHz. The Core 5 223PE has a higher base clock at 2.90 GHz versus 2.80 GHz.

Q: Which processor performs better in Cinebench R23?

A: The Core 5 223PE wins both tests. Multi-core scores are 26455 versus 25753, and single-core scores are 3734 versus 3635. The margin is 2.7% in each case.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Core 5 223PE and the i9-14901E support ECC memory. Both also support DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap in the head-to-head results?

A: The largest delta is in the PassMark extended instructions test, where the Core 5 223PE scores 24672 against 17249 for the i9-14901E, a 43% advantage. The next largest is data compression, where the Core 5 223PE leads by 20%.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ according to the database.

| Specification | Intel Core 5 223PE | Intel Core i9-14901E |

|---|---|---|

| Series | None listed | Core 14th Gen |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Raptor Lake-R |

| Generation | Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) | Core i9 (Raptor Lake Refresh) |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | Not listed |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | UHD Graphics 770 |

| Release Date | 2026-03-08 | 2024-06-30 |

| Launch MSRP | $232 | Not listed |

| Part Number | SA4QF | Q49ESRNJH |

| Die Size | Not listed | 257 mm² |

Both processors share the same core and thread counts, L1 and L2 cache sizes, TDP of 65 W, socket, process node, memory type support, ECC support, PCIe configuration, market segment, production status, and locked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. The Core 5 223PE wins the majority of tests, including the entire Cinebench suite and the multi-thread PassMark test. Its average benchmark score of 40585 is higher, and it ranks one percentile point above the i9-14901E. The i9-14901E, however, demonstrates clear superiority in arithmetic-heavy workloads. Integer math, floating point math, and physics all go to the i9-14901E by double-digit margins. It also has a higher boost clock and more L3 cache.

For a user whose primary concern is general multi-core rendering performance, the Core 5 223PE is the better choice based on the Cinebench results and the higher overall average. For workloads that stress integer arithmetic, physics simulation, or single-thread PassMark performance, the i9-14901E has the edge. The i9-14901E also launched earlier, in June 2024, compared to the Core 5 223PE's March 2026 release.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a differentiator. Both are locked at 65 W TDP and use the same socket, meaning board compatibility is the same. The Core 5 223PE carries a launch MSRP of $232, while no launch price is recorded for the i9-14901E.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core 5 223PE wins in:

• Cinebench R15 multi-core (2666 vs 2595) and single-core (376 vs 366)
• Cinebench R20 multi-core (11111 vs 10816) and single-core (1568 vs 1526)
• Cinebench R23 multi-core (26455 vs 25753) and single-core (3734 vs 3635)
• PassMark data compression (346623 vs 288777)
• PassMark extended instructions (24672 vs 17249)
• PassMark multi-thread (31124 vs 30298)

Intel Core i9-14901E wins in:

• PassMark data encryption (18571 vs 18448)
• PassMark find prime numbers (189 vs 159)
• PassMark floating point math (81089 vs 76468)
• PassMark integer math (112736 vs 99819)
• PassMark physics (3041 vs 2493)
• PassMark random string sorting (39138 vs 35798)
• PassMark single-thread (4354 vs 4219)

The split is clean. The Core 5 223PE dominates rendering workloads and data compression, while the i9-14901E takes the math, physics, and single-thread oriented tests. The 43% lead in extended instructions for the Core 5 223PE is the standout outlier, suggesting that particular workload is strongly optimized for the Bartlett Lake design. The 18% lead in physics for the i9-14901E is the second largest gap, indicating the Raptor Lake architecture handles that specific calculation pattern better. Users should match the workload profile to the chip accordingly.