Intel Core i5-14500 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285H Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H is the decisive performance winner over the Intel Core i5-14500, taking 16 of 19 head-to-head benchmarks with an average benchmark score of 38312 versus 38531 for the i5-14500. Despite the i5-14500’s slightly higher aggregate average and its three specific workload victories, the Ultra 9 285H dominates across rendering, encryption, and floating-point tasks, often by margins exceeding 20 percent. The data indicates that the mobile-focused Ultra 9 285H delivers a fundamentally stronger compute package, though the desktop i5-14500 retains clear advantages in integer-heavy and data-compression workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Ultra 9 285H’s most emphatic win comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 20781.5 against the i5-14500’s 15012, a 27.8 percent advantage. This is the largest performance gap in any benchmark and signals a major multi-threaded rendering lead. The story is similar in Cinebench R15 multi-core, with the Ultra 9 285H posting 3177.5 versus 2435 (a 23.4 percent lead), and in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where it scores 12201 against 10985 (a 10 percent edge). These results show that the Ultra 9 285H is consistently faster across all three Cinebench generations, with the gap widening as the workload scales.

Single-core performance also favors the Ultra 9 285H, though by smaller margins. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2129.5 against 1917 (a 10 percent lead), and in Geekbench single-core, it wins 2178 versus 2099 (a 3.6 percent edge). The pattern repeats in PassMark single-thread tests, where the Ultra 9 285H scores 4415 against 3952 (a 10.5 percent lead). These results indicate that the Arrow Lake architecture delivers a meaningful per-thread improvement over Raptor Lake, but the advantage is far less dramatic than in multi-core workloads.

The Ultra 9 285H also excels in specialized compute tasks. In PassMark find prime numbers, it scores 330 against 106, a staggering 67.9 percent advantage that highlights superior integer-heavy algorithmic throughput. Floating-point math follows suit, with the Ultra 9 285H scoring 109190 versus 79576 (a 27.1 percent lead). Physics simulation is another strong area, with the Ultra 9 285H posting 2513 against 1746 (a 30.5 percent lead). Data encryption favors the Ultra 9 285H at 26140 versus 21457 (a 17.9 percent edge), and extended instructions show a 16.1 percent advantage (26794 versus 22473).

The i5-14500’s wins are concentrated but significant. Its largest victory is in PassMark integer math, where it scores 108124 against 85922, a 25.8 percent lead that suggests a different microarchitectural strength in pure integer operations. It also wins PassMark data compression with a score of 371294 versus 335859 (a 10.6 percent edge), and it edges out the Ultra 9 285H in random string sorting by a razor-thin 0.1 percent (40980 versus 40931). These three wins show that the i5-14500 is not without merit, particularly in data-handling tasks, but they are isolated against the Ultra 9 285H’s broad dominance.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different foundations. The i5-14500 uses Intel’s Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node, fabricated by Intel, with a die size of 215 mm². The Ultra 9 285H uses Arrow Lake on a 3 nm process node, fabricated by TSMC, with no die size listed. This node advantage is a key factor in the Ultra 9 285H’s performance lead, as the smaller process allows for higher efficiency and density.

Core configurations differ sharply. The i5-14500 has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The i5-14500’s thread count exceeds its core count by six, indicating hyper-threading support, whereas the Ultra 9 285H has a 1:1 core-to-thread ratio. Despite having fewer threads, the Ultra 9 285H still wins most multi-threaded benchmarks, suggesting that its Arrow Lake cores are individually more powerful.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The i5-14500 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 285H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and the same 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 285H’s larger per-core L1 and L2 caches likely contribute to its superior single-thread performance, while the shared L3 capacity is identical.

Memory support and platform positioning differ as well. The i5-14500 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, with ECC memory enabled, and uses Intel Socket 1700. The Ultra 9 285H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X on a dual-channel bus with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, also with ECC memory, and uses Intel BGA 2049. The i5-14500 offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 9 285H offers 8 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ, with the i5-14500 featuring UHD Graphics 770 and the Ultra 9 285H featuring Arc Graphics 140T.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with a score of 20781.5, which is 27.8 percent higher than the Intel Core i5-14500’s score of 15012.

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in single-threaded PassMark performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H scores 4415 in PassMark single-thread, while the Intel Core i5-14500 scores 3952, giving the Ultra 9 285H a 10.5 percent lead.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Intel Core i5-14500 beats the Ultra 9 285H by a large margin?

A: Yes, the i5-14500 wins PassMark integer math by 25.8 percent, scoring 108124 versus 85922 for the Ultra 9 285H. It also wins data compression by 10.6 percent (371294 versus 335859).

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-14500 has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which CPU has a larger L2 cache per core?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H has 3 MB of L2 cache per core, compared to 1.25 MB per core for the Intel Core i5-14500.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core i5-14500 is built on Intel’s 10 nm process, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H is built on TSMC’s 3 nm process.

Specification Differences

• Cores: 14 (i5-14500) vs 16 (Ultra 9 285H)
• Threads: 20 (i5-14500) vs 16 (Ultra 9 285H)
• Base Clock: 2.60 GHz (i5-14500) vs 2.90 GHz (Ultra 9 285H)
• Boost Clock: 5.00 GHz (i5-14500) vs 5.40 GHz (Ultra 9 285H)
• TDP: 65 W (i5-14500) vs 45 W (Ultra 9 285H)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 (i5-14500) vs Intel BGA 2049 (Ultra 9 285H)
• Architecture: Raptor Lake (i5-14500) vs Arrow Lake (Ultra 9 285H)
• Process Node: 10 nm (i5-14500) vs 3 nm (Ultra 9 285H)
• Foundry: Intel (i5-14500) vs TSMC (Ultra 9 285H)
• Die Size: 215 mm² (i5-14500) vs not listed (Ultra 9 285H)
• L1 Cache: 80 KB per core (i5-14500) vs 192 KB per core (Ultra 9 285H)
• L2 Cache: 1.25 MB per core (i5-14500) vs 3 MB per core (Ultra 9 285H)
• Memory Support: DDR4, DDR5 (i5-14500) vs DDR5, LPDDR5X (Ultra 9 285H)
• Memory Bandwidth: Not listed (i5-14500) vs 102.4 GB/s (Ultra 9 285H)
• PCIe Lanes: 16 Gen 5 (i5-14500) vs 8 Gen 5 (Ultra 9 285H)
• Integrated Graphics: UHD Graphics 770 (i5-14500) vs Arc Graphics 140T (Ultra 9 285H)
• Market Segment: Desktop (i5-14500) vs Mobile (Ultra 9 285H)
• Release Date: 2024-01-07 (i5-14500) vs 2025-01-12 (Ultra 9 285H)
• Launch MSRP: $232 (i5-14500) vs $651 (Ultra 9 285H)

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H is the superior processor for raw compute performance. It wins 16 of 19 benchmarks, including all Cinebench multi-core and single-core tests, all Geekbench tests, and the majority of PassMark workloads. Its margins are often large, with double-digit leads in rendering, physics, encryption, and floating-point math. The Ultra 9 285H’s 3 nm process, larger per-core caches, and higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz translate directly into measurable performance gains across almost every category.

The Intel Core i5-14500, however, is not obsolete. It wins PassMark integer math by 25.8 percent, data compression by 10.6 percent, and random string sorting by a hair. These wins suggest that the Raptor Lake architecture retains a specific strength in integer-heavy data processing, which could matter for certain server or workstation tasks. The i5-14500 also offers a dual-channel memory bus with DDR4 support, which may be relevant for users with existing DDR4 memory infrastructure.

The choice depends on workload. For users prioritizing rendering, scientific computing, or encryption, the Ultra 9 285H is the clear pick. For those whose primary tasks involve integer math or data compression, the i5-14500 offers a competitive alternative. The Ultra 9 285H’s higher launch MSRP of $651 versus $232 for the i5-14500 reflects its broader and deeper performance advantages, but the i5-14500’s lower TDP of 65 W and desktop socket compatibility make it a viable option for specific use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H wins in rendering and multi-threaded productivity. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 27.8 percent lead, and Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 23.4 percent lead, making it the better choice for video encoding, 3D rendering, and heavy compilation workloads. It also dominates in floating-point math (27.1 percent lead) and physics simulation (30.5 percent lead), which are critical for scientific computing and certain game physics engines. Data encryption is another strong suit, with a 17.9 percent advantage, ideal for security-focused applications.

The Intel Core i5-14500 wins in integer-heavy data processing. Its 25.8 percent lead in PassMark integer math makes it the better option for tasks like financial modeling, database operations, or any workload that relies heavily on integer arithmetic. It also wins data compression by 10.6 percent, which is useful for file archiving and data transfer pipelines. The random string sorting win, while marginal at 0.1 percent, shows that the i5-14500 can hold its own in sorting algorithms.

The Ultra 9 285H also takes single-thread performance across the board, with leads ranging from 3.6 percent in Geekbench single-core to 10.5 percent in PassMark single-thread. This makes it the better choice for lightly-threaded applications, such as legacy software or interactive workloads. The i5-14500’s three wins are specific and narrow, but they are genuine strengths that could tilt a purchasing decision for niche professional use cases.