Intel Core i5-14501TE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265K Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K completely dominates the Intel Core i5-14501TE across every measurable workload in the database. The i5-14501TE has no recorded benchmark scores, while the 265K posts a full suite of results across Cinebench, Geekbench, and Passmark tests. This is not a close contest; the data shows a fundamental performance tier gap between the two processors.

Starting with multi-threaded rendering, the Core Ultra 7 265K scores 35,850 points in Cinebench R23 multicore, 20,918 in Cinebench R20 multicore, and 5,020 in Cinebench R15 multicore. Single-core results are equally strong: 2,020 in Cinebench R23 single-core, 2,953 in Cinebench R20 single-core, and 708 in Cinebench R15 single-core. Geekbench results follow the same pattern, with the 265K achieving 23,085 in multi-core and 2,713 in single-core.

The Passmark suite offers a granular view of the 265K's strengths. Integer math scores 143,242, floating-point math scores 189,629, and extended instructions reach 54,333. Data compression hits 665,554, while data encryption posts 48,246. The processor handles 58,594 in multi-threaded performance, 4,928 in single-thread performance, and 3,731 in physics. Prime number finding yields 491, random string sorting reaches 79,752.

Because the i5-14501TE has zero recorded benchmarks in the database, every comparison is one-sided. The 265K's average benchmark score of 70,879 places it at the 94th percentile among all CPUs tracked. Its nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Xeon 6511P with an average score of 71,051 (0.2% higher), the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 at 71,370 (0.7% higher), the Intel Core i7-14700KF at 70,163 (1% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F at 69,996 (1.3% lower). The 265K sits within a narrow band of these competitors, trailing the two Xeons by less than a percentage point and leading the i7-14700KF and Ryzen 7 9700F by roughly one point or more.

The i5-14501TE, by contrast, sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of zero, meaning the database contains no performance data for it. The lack of recorded measurements prevents any direct numerical comparison, but the architectural and specification differences detailed below explain why the 265K holds such a decisive advantage.

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward choice. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is the only one of the two with recorded performance results, and those results place it in the top 6% of all CPUs in the database. Its 20 cores, 20 threads, 5.50 GHz boost clock, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache deliver top-tier multi-threaded and single-threaded performance, as evidenced by its Cinebench and Geekbench scores. The 265K also carries a launch MSRP of $394, which the database records as its official launch price.

The Intel Core i5-14501TE has no benchmark scores to analyze. Its 6 cores, 12 threads, 5.10 GHz boost clock, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache make it a lower-core-count part, but without recorded measurements, the database cannot quantify its actual performance. The 50th percentile ranking is the only positional data available, and it indicates a mid-pack standing among all CPUs.

From the recorded data alone, the 265K is the clear choice for any workload requiring heavy processing. The i5-14501TE may suit scenarios where its lower core count and 45 W TDP are acceptable, but the absence of benchmark results means no performance claims can be made from the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K reaches 5.50 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-14501TE tops out at 5.10 GHz.

Q: How many cores does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core i5-14501TE has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K has an average benchmark score of 70,879, placing it at the 94th percentile. The Intel Core i5-14501TE has an average benchmark score of 0 and sits at the 50th percentile.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: The Intel Core i5-14501TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K supports only DDR5.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-14501TE has a TDP of 45 watts, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K has a TDP of 125 watts.

Q: Which processor uses a 3 nm process node?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Core i5-14501TE uses a 10 nm process from Intel.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Both processors support ECC memory.

Specification Differences

The Intel Core i5-14501TE and Intel Core Ultra 7 265K differ across nearly every core specification. The i5-14501TE has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the 265K has 20 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are 2.20 GHz for the i5-14501TE and 3.90 GHz for the 265K. Boost clocks are 5.10 GHz and 5.50 GHz respectively. The TDP difference is substantial: 45 watts for the i5-14501TE versus 125 watts for the 265K.

Cache hierarchies diverge as well. The i5-14501TE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, with 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The 265K has 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, with 30 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support differs, with the i5-14501TE accepting DDR4 and DDR5 while the 265K supports DDR5 only. The 265K has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s; the i5-14501TE has no recorded memory bandwidth figure.

PCIe lanes also vary. The i5-14501TE offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the 265K offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Sockets differ completely: the i5-14501TE uses Intel Socket 1700, and the 265K uses Intel Socket 1851. The multiplier is unlocked on the 265K but locked on the i5-14501TE. The i5-14501TE was released on June 30, 2024, while the 265K was released on October 23, 2024.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different architectural generations. The Intel Core i5-14501TE is built on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-R codename, and belongs to the Core 14th Gen series. It uses a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel, with a die size of 215 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2. It is fabricated on a 3 nm process node by TSMC, with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors.

Integrated graphics also differ. The i5-14501TE uses UHD Graphics 770, while the 265K uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Both processors support ECC memory, but the 265K has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, a figure the i5-14501TE lacks in the database.

The 265K's transistor count of 17,800 million versus the i5-14501TE's unspecified count reflects the generational jump in complexity. The 3 nm TSMC process also gives the 265K a smaller feature size compared to the 10 nm Intel process, which contributes to its higher core count and clock speeds within a 125 W TDP envelope.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K wins every category where data exists. Multi-threaded workloads, including rendering, encoding, and compilation, benefit from its 20 cores and 20 threads, as shown by Cinebench R23 multicore at 35,850 and Passmark multi-threaded at 58,594. Single-threaded responsiveness is also stronger, with a Geekbench single-core score of 2,713 and a Passmark single-thread score of 4,928. The 265K's 94th percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 70,879 confirm its position among high-end desktop processors, with its nearest rival, the Intel Xeon 6511P, sitting only 0.2% higher and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F sitting 1.3% lower.

The Intel Core i5-14501TE has no recorded benchmark scores, so the database cannot assign it any wins. Its 45 W TDP is the lowest among the two, and its support for DDR4 alongside DDR5 gives it broader memory compatibility. Its 50th percentile ranking suggests a mid-tier standing, but with zero recorded measurements, any performance-based assessment is impossible. The 265K is the only processor in this comparison with measurable results, and those results place it firmly ahead across every workload the database tracks.