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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data offers no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the Intel Core 5 223PQE and the Intel Core i9-14901E. The database contains a full benchmark suite for the i9-14901E, while the Core 5 223PQE entry currently holds no benchmark scores. This absence of direct measurements shapes the entire comparison: the i9-14901E can be evaluated against its own recorded results and its nearest rivals, while the Core 5 223PQE must be assessed strictly through its architectural specifications.

The i9-14901E posts an average benchmark score of 37911, placing it at the 86th percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals sit remarkably close: the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 scores 37904 with a delta of 0%, the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X scores 37943 with a delta of -0.1%, the Intel Core 5 211E scores 37829 with a delta of 0.2%, and the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 scores 37804 with a delta of 0.3%. The i9-14901E effectively trades positions with these four competitors within a spread of roughly 139 points, indicating that its performance profile lands in a tightly contested tier.

Within its own benchmark results, the i9-14901E shows strong multi-threaded output. Cinebench R23 multicore reaches 25753 points, while the singlecore variant records 3635 points. The R20 suite shows 10816 multicore and 1526 singlecore, and the R15 suite records 2595 multicore and 366 singlecore. The Passmark suite reinforces this pattern: multithread scores 30298, single_thread scores 4354, integer_math scores 112736, floating_point_math scores 81089, and extended_instructions scores 17249. Data workloads also perform well: data_compression scores 288777, data_encryption scores 18571, random_string_sorting scores 39138, find_prime_numbers scores 189, and physics scores 3041.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 223PQE holds no recorded benchmark wins, so its advantages must be inferred from clock and cache specifications. It runs a base clock of 4.00 GHz, which is 1.20 GHz higher than the i9-14901E's 2.80 GHz base. This higher base clock suggests that the Core 5 223PQE can sustain higher all-core frequency at idle or light loads, which could translate to snappier responsiveness in short-burst tasks where frequency ramping matters less. Its boost clock of 5.50 GHz trails the i9-14901E's 5.60 GHz by a narrow 0.10 GHz, so peak single-core performance should be nearly identical, with a slight edge to the i9-14901E.

The i9-14901E wins decisively in sustained multi-threaded workloads. Its 36 MB of shared L3 cache is 12 MB larger than the Core 5 223PQE's 24 MB, and its 65 W TDP is 60 W lower than the Core 5 223PQE's 125 W. The benchmark data confirms that the i9-14901E delivers high multi-core scores across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, along with strong Passmark multithread results. The Core 5 223PQE, lacking benchmark data, cannot claim any measured wins, but its higher base clock and larger power envelope could indicate that it targets workloads requiring sustained frequency rather than cache-heavy processing.

Architecture Differences

Both processors use Intel Socket 1700, a 10 nm process node from Intel's foundry, DDR4 and DDR5 memory support, dual-channel memory buses, Gen 5 PCIe with 16 CPU lanes, UHD Graphics 770 integrated graphics, ECC memory support, and locked multipliers. They share identical L1 and L2 cache configurations: 80 KB per core and 2 MB per core respectively.

The architectural split emerges in cache hierarchy and generation. The Core 5 223PQE belongs to the Bartlett Lake codename, marked as generation "Core 5 (Bartlett Lake)", with a release date of 2026-03-08. The i9-14901E uses the Raptor Lake architecture, codename Raptor Lake-R, generation "Core i9 (Raptor Lake Refresh)", with a release date of 2024-06-30. The i9-14901E carries a die size of 257 mm², while the Core 5 223PQE has no die size recorded. The L3 cache differs substantially: 24 MB shared on the Core 5 223PQE versus 36 MB shared on the i9-14901E. Neither processor reports total L3, transistors, or 3D V-Cache data.

The i9-14901E's Raptor Lake Refresh lineage suggests a mature design with refinements over prior generations, while the Bartlett Lake codename on the Core 5 223PQE indicates a newer entry in Intel's desktop lineup. The i9-14901E belongs to the Core 14th Gen series, a naming structure that identifies its place in Intel's product stack, whereas the Core 5 223PQE lacks a series designation. The part numbers also differ: SA4QC for the Core 5 223PQE and Q49ESRNJH for the i9-14901E.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E reaches 5.60 GHz, which is 0.10 GHz higher than the Core 5 223PQE's 5.50 GHz boost clock.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: Both processors have 8 cores and 16 threads, so they are identical in this regard.

Q: What is the L3 cache difference?

A: The i9-14901E has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core 5 223PQE has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, a difference of 12 MB in favor of the i9-14901E.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Core 5 223PQE and the i9-14901E list ECC memory support as true.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The Core 5 223PQE has a TDP of 125 W, while the i9-14901E has a TDP of 65 W, making the i9-14901E 60 W lower.

Q: What is the release date for each processor?

A: The Core 5 223PQE released on 2026-03-08, and the i9-14901E released on 2024-06-30.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in the following recorded fields:

• Boost Clock: Core 5 223PQE at 5.50 GHz, i9-14901E at 5.60 GHz
• Base Clock: Core 5 223PQE at 4.00 GHz, i9-14901E at 2.80 GHz
• TDP: Core 5 223PQE at 125 W, i9-14901E at 65 W
• Codename: Core 5 223PQE as Bartlett Lake, i9-14901E as Raptor Lake-R
• Generation: Core 5 223PQE as "Core 5 (Bartlett Lake)", i9-14901E as "Core i9 (Raptor Lake Refresh)"
• Series: Core 5 223PQE has no series, i9-14901E as Core 14th Gen
• L3 Cache: Core 5 223PQE at 24 MB shared, i9-14901E at 36 MB shared
• Die Size: Core 5 223PQE has no recorded value, i9-14901E at 257 mm²
• Memory Bandwidth: Core 5 223PQE at 89.6 GB/s, i9-14901E has no recorded value
• Release Date: Core 5 223PQE on 2026-03-08, i9-14901E on 2024-06-30
• Launch MSRP: Core 5 223PQE at $319, i9-14901E has no recorded value
• Part Number: Core 5 223PQE as SA4QC, i9-14901E as Q49ESRNJH

Fields that remain identical include cores (8), threads (16), socket (Intel Socket 1700), process node (10 nm), foundry (Intel), L1 cache (80 KB per core), L2 cache (2 MB per core), memory support (DDR4, DDR5), memory bus (Dual-channel), ECC memory (true), PCIe (Gen 5, 16 Lanes CPU only), integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 770), market segment (Desktop), production status (Active), and multiplier unlocked (false).

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core i9-14901E is the measured performer. Its average benchmark score of 37911 places it at the 86th percentile, and its Cinebench and Passmark results confirm strong multi-threaded capability. The 36 MB L3 cache and 5.60 GHz boost clock give it advantages in cache-sensitive and peak single-core workloads. The 65 W TDP also suggests greater efficiency per watt compared to the Core 5 223PQE's 125 W envelope.

The Intel Core 5 223PQE presents a different profile. Its 4.00 GHz base clock is significantly higher, which could benefit workloads that spend time at base frequency rather than boosting. The 24 MB L3 cache is smaller, and the 125 W TDP indicates higher power consumption. The launch MSRP of $319 provides a reference point, though no benchmark scores exist to validate its actual performance. The 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth is a recorded advantage, as the i9-14901E has no bandwidth figure listed.

Users who need verified performance data should favor the i9-14901E, as its benchmark results are extensive and its percentile ranking is strong. Users who prioritize base clock frequency or require a newer release date may consider the Core 5 223PQE, but the absence of benchmark measurements leaves its real-world standing unconfirmed. The i9-14901E's established scores across Cinebench and Passmark, combined with its larger cache and lower TDP, make it the safer choice based on the recorded data.