Intel Core 5 223PQE vs Intel Core i5-14501E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either the Intel Core 5 223PQE or the Intel Core i5-14501E. Both processors have an average benchmark score of 0, and no head-to-head benchmark entries exist in the recorded data. Consequently, there are no exact performance deltas, percentile differences, or win counts to report from direct measurements. The winsA and winsB fields both register 0, indicating that neither processor has a measured advantage in the database. This absence of data means that any performance comparison must be derived from architectural specifications, core counts, clock rates, and cache configurations rather than from empirical benchmark results.

Both processors hold a percentile rank of 50 against all CPUs in the database, which places them at the median of all recorded processors. This parity in percentile ranking does not reflect equal performance, as the percentile calculation is based on the average benchmark score, and both scores are currently zero. The lack of benchmark data prevents any statistical differentiation between the two units at this time.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 223PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) generation, while the Intel Core i5-14501E uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake Refresh generation, specifically under the Raptor Lake-R codename. Both processors are manufactured by Intel on a 10 nm process node and built at Intel foundries, so the underlying fabrication process is identical.

The core and thread configurations differ substantially. The Core 5 223PQE provides 8 cores and 16 threads, whereas the Core i5-14501E provides 6 cores and 12 threads. This gives the 223PQE a 33% advantage in core count and a 33% advantage in thread count over the 14501E. The additional two cores and four threads in the 223PQE are likely to benefit multi-threaded workloads, although no benchmark data confirms this directly.

Clock speeds also favor the 223PQE. Its base clock is 4.00 GHz compared to 3.30 GHz for the 14501E, and its boost clock is 5.50 GHz compared to 5.20 GHz. The 223PQE therefore holds a 0.70 GHz base clock advantage and a 0.30 GHz boost clock advantage. These higher clocks, combined with the extra cores, suggest a stronger single-thread and multi-thread performance profile, subject to thermal and power constraints.

Cache configurations show a notable difference in L2 cache. The 223PQE has 2 MB of L2 cache per core, while the 14501E has 1.25 MB per core. Both processors share 24 MB of L3 cache. The larger per-core L2 cache on the 223PQE may reduce memory latency for frequently accessed data, though the database records no direct latency measurements.

Power and thermal specifications differ significantly. The 223PQE has a TDP of 125 watts, while the 14501E has a TDP of 65 watts. This means the 223PQE consumes nearly twice the thermal design power of the 14501E, which has implications for cooling requirements and power delivery on the motherboard. The 14501E's lower TDP suggests it is better suited for systems with modest cooling or lower power budgets.

The die size is recorded only for the 14501E, at 215 mm². No die size is listed for the 223PQE, so a direct comparison of physical die dimensions is not possible from the database.

Memory support is identical in type: both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel memory bus. The 223PQE records a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the 14501E has no memory bandwidth figure listed. Both processors support ECC memory, which is relevant for workstation or server use cases. PCIe support is also identical, with both offering Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are the same UHD Graphics 770 on both processors.

The 223PQE was released on March 8, 2026, while the 14501E was released on June 30, 2024. Both processors remain in active production status as of the database records. The 223PQE has a launch MSRP of $319; the 14501E has no launch MSRP recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 5 223PQE has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i5-14501E has 6 cores and 12 threads. The 223PQE provides two additional cores and four additional threads.

Q: Do both processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 5 223PQE and the Intel Core i5-14501E are manufactured on a 10 nm process node by Intel.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core 5 223PQE records a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel Core i5-14501E has no memory bandwidth figure listed in the database, so no comparison can be made from recorded data.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 5 223PQE and the Intel Core i5-14501E support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 223PQE has a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, which is 0.30 GHz higher than the boost clock of 5.20 GHz on the Intel Core i5-14501E.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 5 223PQE and the Intel Core i5-14501E have an active production status in the database.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the Intel Core 5 223PQE and the Intel Core i5-14501E:

• Cores: 8 (223PQE) versus 6 (14501E)
• Threads: 16 (223PQE) versus 12 (14501E)
• Base Clock: 4.00 GHz (223PQE) versus 3.30 GHz (14501E)
• Boost Clock: 5.50 GHz (223PQE) versus 5.20 GHz (14501E)
• TDP: 125 watts (223PQE) versus 65 watts (14501E)
• Codename: Bartlett Lake (223PQE) versus Raptor Lake-R (14501E)
• Generation: Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) (223PQE) versus Core i5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) (14501E)
• Architecture: not listed (223PQE) versus Raptor Lake (14501E)
• L2 Cache: 2 MB per core (223PQE) versus 1.25 MB per core (14501E)
• Memory Bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s (223PQE) versus not listed (14501E)
• Die Size: not listed (223PQE) versus 215 mm² (14501E)
• Release Date: March 8, 2026 (223PQE) versus June 30, 2024 (14501E)
• Launch MSRP: $319 (223PQE) versus not listed (14501E)
• Part Number: SA4QC (223PQE) versus Q49HSRNJM (14501E)

Specifications that are identical between the two processors include the socket (Intel Socket 1700), process node (10 nm), foundry (Intel), L1 cache (80 KB per core), L3 cache (24 MB shared), memory support (DDR4, DDR5), memory bus (dual-channel), ECC memory support (true), PCIe (Gen 5, 16 lanes CPU only), integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 770), market segment (Desktop), production status (Active), and multiplier unlocked status (false).

The Verdict

The recorded data shows no benchmark scores for either processor, so the verdict must rest on the architectural and specification differences. The Intel Core 5 223PQE holds advantages in core count, thread count, base clock, boost clock, L2 cache per core, and memory bandwidth. The Intel Core i5-14501E holds a significant advantage in power consumption, with a TDP of 65 watts compared to 125 watts for the 223PQE. The 223PQE also has a die size that is not recorded, while the 14501E is listed at 215 mm².

Based purely on specifications, the Intel Core 5 223PQE is positioned as the higher-performance processor. Its 8-core, 16-thread configuration with a 5.50 GHz boost clock and 2 MB L2 cache per core gives it a structural advantage across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. The 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth further supports data-intensive operations. The higher TDP of 125 watts indicates that this processor is designed for systems that can accommodate greater thermal output and power draw.

The Intel Core i5-14501E, with its 6-core, 12-thread configuration and 65-watt TDP, is positioned as a more power-efficient option. Its lower base and boost clocks reduce peak performance potential, but the reduced thermal load makes it suitable for compact or thermally constrained systems. Both processors share the same socket, process node, memory type support, ECC capability, PCIe generation, and integrated graphics, so platform-level integration is similar.

The absence of benchmark data means that the performance gap between these two processors cannot be quantified from measurements. The specification sheet favors the 223PQE in nearly every performance-relevant metric except power efficiency. The 14501E is the only option for users who prioritize low power draw, as its 65-watt TDP is roughly half that of the 223PQE.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 223PQE wins on every measurable performance-oriented specification. It provides 2 more cores and 4 more threads, which directly benefits parallel workloads such as video rendering, compilation, and scientific computing. Its 4.00 GHz base clock and 5.50 GHz boost clock are both higher than the 14501E's 3.30 GHz and 5.20 GHz, giving it an edge in latency-sensitive single-threaded tasks. The 2 MB per-core L2 cache is 60% larger than the 1.25 MB per-core L2 cache on the 14501E, which can improve performance for workloads with high cache locality. The recorded 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth on the 223PQE, while the 14501E has no recorded figure, further supports memory-heavy applications.

The Intel Core i5-14501E wins on power efficiency. Its 65-watt TDP is 60 watts lower than the 223PQE's 125-watt TDP, making it the appropriate choice for systems with limited cooling capacity, smaller power supplies, or lower operating costs. The 14501E also has the advantage of an earlier release date, June 30, 2024, which may indicate longer market availability, though both processors remain in active production. The 14501E has a recorded die size of 215 mm², which provides a concrete physical specification, whereas the 223PQE has no die size listed.

For users who require maximum thread count, highest clock speeds, and the largest L2 cache, the Intel Core 5 223PQE is the specification-driven choice. For users who require minimal power consumption and thermal output, the Intel Core i5-14501E is the only choice that meets that constraint. The database currently provides no benchmark results to confirm how these specification differences translate into real-world performance, so the analysis remains limited to the recorded architectural data.