Intel Core 7 251E vs Intel Core i9-14900KS Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core i9-14900KS is the only one of these two processors with recorded benchmark scores in the database, so the head-to-head comparison is dominated by its measured performance. The Core 7 251E has no benchmark entries, an average benchmark score of zero, and sits at the 50th percentile among all CPUs. The Core i9-14900KS, by contrast, holds a 96th percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of 81,127.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 14900KS scores 50,995. That figure places it directly adjacent to rivals like the Intel Xeon w5-3535X (81,115 average score, 0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX (81,103 average score, 0% delta). The 14900KS also edges past the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 (80,762, 0.5% delta) and the Intel Xeon 638 (80,723, 0.5% delta). The single-core Cinebench R23 result of 7,199 is a strong showing, and the Geekbench multi-core score of 23,931 reinforces the multi-threaded capability.

PassMark results for the 14900KS show 60,012 in multithread, 4,815 in single-thread, 212,644 in integer math, 153,975 in floating point math, and 45,524 in extended instructions. Data compression reaches 803,368, data encryption scores 47,717, and random string sorting hits 89,789. The find prime numbers test yields 244, while physics scores 3,381.

Since the Core 7 251E has no recorded benchmarks, the database cannot produce a win count for either processor. The head-to-head benchmark field is empty, and wins for both items are zero. The only measurable comparison comes from the presence of the 14900KS's scores and its rival proximity, which shows it trading blows with workstation-class Xeon and top-end Ryzen parts.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-14900KS wins in every category where the database has measurements. That includes rendering workloads, as shown by Cinebench R15 (multi-core 5,140, single-core 725), R20 (multi-core 21,417, single-core 3,023), and R23 (multi-core 50,995, single-core 7,199). General-purpose computing in Geekbench also favors it: multi-core 23,931 and single-core 2,692.

For the Core 7 251E, the absence of benchmark data means no wins can be assigned. The processor's specification sheet suggests it targets a different power envelope, with a 65 watt TDP compared to the 150 watt TDP of the 14900KS. That lower power draw could imply efficiency-oriented use cases, but the database contains no measured scores to confirm any performance advantage. The 251E does carry the same 24 cores, 32 threads, 36 MB shared L3 cache, and 80 KB L1 cache per core as the 14900KS, so the architectural blueprint is similar. However, without benchmark results, any statement about where the 251E wins is unsupported by the recorded data.

The 14900KS also holds the advantage in clock speed: 3.20 GHz base and 6.20 GHz boost versus the 251E's 2.10 GHz base and 5.60 GHz boost. That boost advantage likely drives the single-core performance gap, though again, only the 14900KS has measured scores. The 14900KS additionally offers an unlocked multiplier, while the 251E does not, which matters for overclocking scenarios.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core i9-14900KS compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The 14900KS has an average benchmark score of 81,127. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon w5-3535X (81,115, 0% delta), AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX (81,103, 0% delta), AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 (80,762, 0.5% delta), and Intel Xeon 638 (80,723, 0.5% delta). The deltas are minimal, indicating near-identical average performance.

Q: What is the single-core performance of the 14900KS?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 14900KS scores 7,199. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 3,023, and in Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 725. Geekbench single-core shows 2,692, and PassMark single-thread shows 4,815.

Q: Does the Core 7 251E have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The Core 7 251E has an empty benchmark array, an average benchmark score of zero, and no nearest rivals listed. Its percentile rank is 50, compared to the 14900KS at 96.

Q: What memory features do both processors share?

A: Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus. Both also support ECC memory. The 251E has a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the 14900KS has no memory bandwidth figure listed.

Q: Are both processors on the same socket and process node?

A: Yes. Both use Intel Socket 1700 and a 10 nm process node, manufactured by Intel. Both have a die size of 257 mm².

Q: What is the difference in launch MSRP between the two CPUs?

A: The Core 7 251E has a launch MSRP of $384, while the Core i9-14900KS has a launch MSRP of $689.

Specification Differences

The Core 7 251E and Core i9-14900KS share several core specifications: both have 24 cores, 32 threads, 80 KB L1 cache per core, 2 MB L2 cache per core, and 36 MB shared L3 cache. Both use Intel Socket 1700, a 10 nm process node, and a 257 mm² die size. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory, dual-channel bus, ECC memory, PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, and integrated UHD Graphics 770. Both are active production desktop parts.

The differences are in the following fields:

• Base clock: 2.10 GHz (251E) versus 3.20 GHz (14900KS)
• Boost clock: 5.60 GHz (251E) versus 6.20 GHz (14900KS)
• TDP: 65 watts (251E) versus 150 watts (14900KS)
• Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s (251E) versus not listed (14900KS)
• Multiplier unlocked: false (251E) versus true (14900KS)
• Release date: 2025-01-12 (251E) versus 2024-03-13 (14900KS)
• Launch MSRP: $384 (251E) versus $689 (14900KS)
• Series: null (251E) versus Core 14th Gen (14900KS)
• Architecture: null (251E) versus Raptor Lake (14900KS)
• Codename: Bartlett Lake (251E) versus Raptor Lake-R (14900KS)
• Generation: Core 7 (Bartlett Lake) versus Core i9 (Raptor Lake Refresh)
• Part number: SRQDUQ657 (251E) versus SRN7R (14900KS)
• Benchmark scores: none (251E) versus full suite (14900KS)
• Percentile: 50 (251E) versus 96 (14900KS)
• Average benchmark score: 0 (251E) versus 81,127 (14900KS)

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's 10 nm node and share identical cache hierarchies: 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The die size is also identical at 257 mm². The core and thread counts match exactly, which suggests a similar underlying compute fabric.

The architecture field for the 251E is null, while the 14900KS lists Raptor Lake. The codenames differ: Bartlett Lake for the 251E and Raptor Lake-R for the 14900KS. The generation strings also differ: Core 7 (Bartlett Lake) versus Core i9 (Raptor Lake Refresh). This indicates the 251E belongs to a newer product family, while the 14900KS is part of the 14th Gen refresh cycle.

Both processors integrate UHD Graphics 770 and support PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. ECC memory support is present on both. The 14900KS has an unlocked multiplier, which is a feature the 251E lacks, and this points to enthusiast-oriented tuning capability on the 14900KS. The 251E's lower TDP of 65 watts versus 150 watts suggests a thermally constrained design, but the database provides no architectural details beyond the listed fields to explain how that power reduction is achieved.

Memory bandwidth is listed only for the 251E at 89.6 GB/s; the 14900KS has no recorded value. Both support the same memory types and bus width, so the bandwidth difference, if any, is not directly measurable from the data.

The Verdict

The recorded data strongly favors the Intel Core i9-14900KS for any workload where measured performance matters. Its benchmark scores span rendering, encryption, compression, and math operations, and its 96th percentile rank places it among the top CPUs in the database. The near-zero deltas against the Intel Xeon w5-3535X and AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX show that the 14900KS is competitive with workstation-class and high-end mobile parts, respectively. The 14900KS also offers a higher boost clock (6.20 GHz versus 5.60 GHz) and an unlocked multiplier, which supports manual overclocking.

The Core 7 251E lacks any benchmark data, so its performance cannot be quantified from the database. Its lower TDP (65 watts versus 150 watts) and lower launch MSRP ($384 versus $689) are the only advantages indicated by the specification sheet. The 251E also has a listed memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, which the 14900KS lacks in its entry, though both support the same memory types and bus configuration.

For a user prioritizing measured multi-threaded or single-threaded performance, the 14900KS is the clear choice based on the evidence. For a user prioritizing lower power consumption and a lower launch MSRP, the 251E has the edge on paper, but no benchmark results exist to confirm real-world capability. The 251E's newer release date (2025 versus 2024) and Bartlett Lake codename suggest a refresh, but the database offers no performance data to validate that generational step. The decision rests on whether measured performance or power and cost specifications matter more, and the data only supports a definitive recommendation for the 14900KS.