Intel Core i5-14490F vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225H Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents two clearly different processors for two clearly different jobs. The Intel Core i5-14490F is a desktop part built for maximum sustained multithreaded throughput, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H is a mobile part designed for efficiency and strong single-thread performance in a constrained thermal envelope. Benchmark results show the i5-14490F wins the majority of the heavy compute workloads, particularly in Cinebench R23 multi-core where it scores 23,000 against 14,629.5 for the Ultra 5 225H, a 57.2% advantage. The Ultra 5 225H, however, counters with wins in PassMark single-thread (4,258 vs 3,873, a 9% lead) and in several math and encryption tests.

For a desktop builder with a Socket 1700 motherboard and access to a discrete GPU, the i5-14490F is the obvious pick. Its 10 cores and 16 threads with a 5.00 GHz boost clock deliver class-leading multi-core results for its segment. The Ultra 5 225H, with 14 cores but only 14 threads, a 4.90 GHz boost clock, and a 28 W TDP, is built for laptops where battery life and heat matter more than raw Cinebench numbers. The recorded data shows the mobile chip wins 9 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, but its wins are mostly in lighter or specialized tasks, while the desktop chip wins the heavier rendering workloads by larger margins.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story: the i5-14490F sits at 38,149 with an 86th percentile ranking, while the Ultra 5 225H scores 31,508 at the 82nd percentile. The desktop part is the stronger all-around performer, but the mobile part is not far behind in many tests, and it does so at less than half the TDP. The choice depends entirely on platform: desktop users should take the i5-14490F, mobile users have no choice but the Ultra 5 225H.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H has 14 cores, while the Intel Core i5-14490F has 10 cores. However, the i5-14490F has 16 threads versus 14 threads for the Ultra 5 225H.

Q: Which chip wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core i5-14490F wins decisively with a score of 23,000 compared to 14,629.5 for the Ultra 5 225H, a 57.2% difference.

Q: Does the Ultra 5 225H have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Arc Graphics 130T. The i5-14490F has no integrated graphics (N/A), so a discrete GPU is required.

Q: What memory types does each support?

A: The i5-14490F supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 225H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The i5-14490F boosts up to 5.00 GHz, while the Ultra 5 225H boosts up to 4.90 GHz.

Q: Which chip is better for floating point math?

A: The Ultra 5 225H scores 86,540 in PassMark floating point math versus 66,558 for the i5-14490F, a 23.1% lead for the mobile chip.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and use fundamentally different designs. The i5-14490F is based on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-R codename, part of the Core 14th Gen desktop family. It uses Intel's 10 nm process node and is manufactured by Intel itself. The die size is 215 mm². The architecture is a mature desktop design with a 65 W TDP and Socket 1700.

The Ultra 5 225H is an Arrow Lake part, codename Arrow Lake-H, from the Core Ultra Series 2 mobile lineup. It uses a 3 nm process node manufactured by TSMC, a significant shrink compared to the 10 nm node of the i5-14490F. The die size is not recorded in the database. Its TDP is 28 W, and it uses Intel BGA 2049, a mobile socket.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The i5-14490F has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 5 225H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, but only 18 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core caches on the Ultra 5 225H suggest a different core design optimized for lower latency per thread, while the i5-14490F compensates with a larger shared L3 pool.

The i5-14490F uses a 10-core, 16-thread configuration, which implies a mix of performance and efficiency cores. The Ultra 5 225H uses 14 cores with 14 threads, meaning no hyperthreading on any core, a notable design choice for Arrow Lake. Process node differences also affect transistor density, though exact transistor counts are not recorded. The foundry shift from Intel to TSMC is a major architectural change, as is the move from a desktop platform to a mobile one.

The integrated graphics situation is another key divider. The i5-14490F has none, while the Ultra 5 225H includes Arc Graphics 130T, making the mobile chip a complete system-on-chip solution for laptops without discrete GPUs.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows clear separations between the two parts. The i5-14490F has 10 cores and 16 threads; the Ultra 5 225H has 14 cores and 14 threads. Base clocks are 2.50 GHz for the desktop chip and 1.70 GHz for the mobile chip. Boost clocks are closer: 5.00 GHz versus 4.90 GHz.

TDP is a major differentiator: 65 W for the i5-14490F, 28 W for the Ultra 5 225H. The desktop part uses Intel Socket 1700, the mobile part uses Intel BGA 2049. Process nodes are 10 nm (Intel) for the i5-14490F and 3 nm (TSMC) for the Ultra 5 225H. The i5-14490F has a die size of 215 mm²; no die size is recorded for the Ultra 5 225H.

Memory support: the i5-14490F accepts DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 225H accepts DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The mobile chip has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s; no memory bandwidth figure is recorded for the desktop chip. Both are dual-channel and neither supports ECC memory.

PCIe lanes differ: the i5-14490F provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 5 225H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics: none on the desktop chip, Arc Graphics 130T on the mobile chip. The i5-14490F was released on December 31, 2023, while the Ultra 5 225H was released on January 12, 2025. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier. Part numbers are SRN35 for the i5-14490F and SRQAM for the Ultra 5 225H.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows 17 recorded comparisons, with the Ultra 5 225H winning 9 and the i5-14490F winning 8. The wins are not evenly distributed; they cluster by workload type.

The i5-14490F dominates in Cinebench R23. In multi-core, it scores 23,000 against 14,629.5, a 57.2% lead. In single-core, it scores 3,247 versus 1,969, a 64.9% lead. These are the largest margins in either direction. However, in Cinebench R15 and R20, the Ultra 5 225H wins. R15 multi-core goes to the mobile chip at 2,397.5 versus 2,318, a 3.3% edge. R20 multi-core also goes to the mobile chip at 10,041 versus 9,660, a 3.8% lead. R20 single-core likewise favors the Ultra 5 225H at 1,417 versus 1,363, a 3.8% margin. Only R15 single-core favors the i5-14490F at 327 versus 288.5, a 13.3% lead. The Cinebench results are inconsistent across versions, which suggests the tests stress different aspects of the two architectures.

PassMark results add more texture. The i5-14490F wins data compression by 20% (340,026 vs 283,451), integer math by 28.2% (87,844 vs 68,520), multithread by 1.9% (28,662 vs 28,119), physics by 11.5% (2,093 vs 1,877), and random string sorting by 5.8% (35,608 vs 33,654). The Ultra 5 225H wins data encryption by 14.9% (21,428 vs 18,225), extended instructions by 0.8% (21,915 vs 21,731), find prime numbers by 44.5% (220 vs 122), floating point math by 23.1% (86,540 vs 66,558), and single-thread by 9% (4,258 vs 3,873). The single-thread score is duplicated in the PassMark data as both "single_thread" and "singlethread", both at 4,258.

The floating point math result is particularly striking. The Ultra 5 225H at 86,540 outperforms the i5-14490F at 66,558 despite having a lower boost clock and lower TDP. The find prime numbers result also favors the mobile chip massively, 220 versus 122, a 44.5% margin. These wins indicate the Arrow Lake architecture has a significant advantage in certain computational patterns, likely due to the newer core design and larger per-core L1 and L2 caches.

Where Each One Wins

The i5-14490F is the clear winner for sustained multi-core rendering and compression workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 23,000 is 57.2% higher than the Ultra 5 225H, and its PassMark data compression score of 340,026 beats the mobile chip by 20%. Integer math is another strong point, with an 28.2% lead at 87,844 versus 68,520. The desktop chip also takes PassMark multithread (28,662 vs 28,119) and physics (2,093 vs 1,877), though by smaller margins. For any workload that scales with thread count and sustained power delivery, the i5-14490F is the pick.

The Ultra 5 225H wins where the workload favors its architectural strengths. PassMark single-thread at 4,258 beats the i5-14490F by 9%, and floating point math at 86,540 beats it by 23.1%. Data encryption (21,428 vs 18,225, a 14.9% lead) and find prime numbers (220 vs 122, a 44.5% lead) are also clear wins for the mobile chip. The Cinebench R20 results favor it in both multi-core and single-core, though by modest margins of 3.8%. These wins suggest the Ultra 5 225H is better suited for lightly threaded tasks, cryptographic operations, and floating point-heavy calculations, all while consuming 28 W compared to the i5-14490F's 65 W.

The split is practical. A desktop user doing video rendering, code compilation, or data compression should choose the i5-14490F. A laptop user doing office work, web browsing, or scientific floating point calculations would find the Ultra 5 225H sufficient, with the added benefit of integrated graphics and a much lower power draw. The i5-14490F requires a discrete GPU, which adds cost and power consumption to the system. The Ultra 5 225H can run without one. The data does not show a universal winner; it shows two parts optimized for different environments.