Intel Core i5-14501TE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data for this comparison is one-sided. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has recorded results across Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and PassMark suites, while the Intel Core i5-14501TE has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus therefore holds every measured performance advantage by default of having measurable data.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39,684 points, a result that places it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its single-core R23 score of 2,356 points indicates strong per-thread performance as well. In Cinebench R20, the chip records 21,198 points multi-core and 2,992 points single-core, while in the older R15 test it scores 5,981 points multi-core and 340 points single-core.

PassMark results for the Ultra 9 290HX Plus show a multi-thread score of 59,439 and a single-thread score of 4,951. The data compression test yields 658,724 points, while data encryption reaches 50,008 points. Extended instruction workloads score 51,290 points, floating point math scores 201,773 points, and integer math scores 164,839 points. Prime number finding scores 519 points, physics simulation scores 3,387 points, and random string sorting scores 80,327 points.

The average benchmark score for the Ultra 9 290HX Plus is 79,574, placing it directly alongside several high-end desktop and workstation parts. It sits 0.3% above the Intel Core i9-14900KF, 0.6% above the Intel Core i9-14900K, 0.6% below the AMD EPYC 7413, and 1.4% below the Intel Xeon w5-2565X. These margins are tight, meaning the Ultra 9 290HX Plus competes at the very top of the database's performance hierarchy despite being a mobile-class processor.

The i5-14501TE, by contrast, has zero recorded benchmarks, a 0 average score, and sits at the 50th percentile. No nearest rivals are listed for it. This makes a direct numerical comparison impossible, and any analysis must rely on architectural differences and the Ultra 9's recorded results alone.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and use fundamentally different designs. The i5-14501TE belongs to the Core 14th Gen series and uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R codename. It is a desktop part on the Intel Socket 1700 platform. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename, and is a mobile part on the Intel BGA 2114 socket.

Process technology differs sharply. The i5-14501TE is built on Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 215 mm². The Ultra 9 290HX Plus is manufactured on TSMC's 3 nm node with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. The smaller process node gives the Ultra 9 a significant density and efficiency advantage, though the database does not include direct efficiency measurements.

Core counts differ substantially. The i5-14501TE has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning it does not use simultaneous multithreading. The Ultra 9 therefore offers four times the physical core count, while the i5 uses hyperthreading to double its thread count.

Cache hierarchies are also different. The i5-14501TE uses 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 has larger per-core caches and 50% more L3 overall.

Clock speeds favor the Ultra 9 as well. The i5-14501TE has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The Ultra 9 runs faster at both ends of the frequency range.

Thermal design power differs, with the i5-14501TE rated at 45 W and the Ultra 9 290HX Plus at 55 W. Both support ECC memory. Memory support differs: the i5 supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Ultra 9 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, a figure the i5 does not have in the database.

PCIe connectivity differs. The i5-14501TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics also differ: the i5 uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 9 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

The Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the i5-14501TE does not. Release dates are far apart: the i5 launched on June 30, 2024, and the Ultra 9 on March 16, 2026. Both are active production parts.

The Verdict

The recorded data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus in every measurable category. It offers more cores, more cache, higher clocks, a smaller process node, and a 95th-percentile benchmark standing. The i5-14501TE has no benchmark results in the database, making its performance position unmeasurable against the Ultra 9.

The Ultra 9's average benchmark score of 79,574 places it within 1.4% of the Intel Xeon w5-2565X and within 0.6% of the AMD EPYC 7413, both workstation and server class processors. It edges out the Intel Core i9-14900K and i9-14900KF by 0.6% and 0.3% respectively. This is a mobile processor performing at the level of flagship desktop and server parts.

The i5-14501TE, with its 6 cores, 12 threads, and 50th-percentile standing, is a lower-core-count desktop part. Its only structural advantages are its lower 45 W TDP, its support for DDR4 memory, and its Socket 1700 compatibility. The Ultra 9 requires DDR5 and a BGA 2114 socket, which limits it to mobile or embedded platforms.

For workloads measured by Cinebench and PassMark, the Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the clear choice based on data. For a desktop build requiring DDR4 support or a 45 W power envelope, the i5-14501TE has those specific attributes, but no benchmark data supports a performance claim in its favor.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-14501TE | Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 24 |

| Threads | 12 | 24 |

| Base clock | 2.20 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.10 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2114 |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-R | Arrow Lake-HX Refresh |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die size | 215 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 cache | 80 KB per core | 192 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 1.25 MB per core | 3 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 24 MB shared | 36 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | Not recorded | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 lanes | Gen 5, 20 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Release date | June 30, 2024 | March 16, 2026 |

| Percentile | 50th | 95th |

| Average benchmark score | 0 | 79,574 |

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core i5-14501TE has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an average benchmark score of 79,574, while the i5-14501TE has an average benchmark score of 0 because no benchmark results are recorded for it.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i5-14501TE and the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, compared to 5.10 GHz for the Intel Core i5-14501TE.

Q: What process nodes are used by each processor?

A: The i5-14501TE is built on Intel's 10 nm process, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus is built on TSMC's 3 nm process.

Q: How does the Ultra 9 290HX Plus compare to the Intel Core i9-14900K?

A: The Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an average benchmark score of 79,574, which is 0.6% higher than the Intel Core i9-14900K's score of 79,097.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins in every benchmark category with recorded data. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39,684 and PassMark multi-thread score of 59,439 indicate strong performance in heavily threaded workloads such as rendering, video encoding, and scientific computation. Its single-thread PassMark score of 4,951 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,356 show it also leads in lightly threaded tasks like application responsiveness and legacy software.

The Ultra 9's PassMark data compression score of 658,724 and random string sorting score of 80,327 point to strong performance in data processing and compression tasks. Its floating point math score of 201,773 and integer math score of 164,839 indicate solid numerical computation ability. Data encryption at 50,008 points and extended instruction workloads at 51,290 points round out a comprehensive performance profile.

The Intel Core i5-14501TE wins only in structural attributes. Its 45 W TDP is lower than the Ultra 9's 55 W, suggesting a smaller cooling requirement, though no thermal or power efficiency benchmarks are recorded. Its support for DDR4 memory gives it compatibility with older memory platforms, and its Socket 1700 interface makes it usable in desktop motherboards that accept that socket. Its 6-core, 12-thread configuration and 24 MB of L3 cache are the only other distinguishing features, all of which are smaller than the Ultra 9's equivalents.

The Ultra 9 290HX Plus also holds the advantage in PCIe lane count, offering 20 Gen 5 lanes compared to 16 on the i5-14501TE. Its integrated graphics solution, Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, differs from the i5's UHD Graphics 770, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded for either part. The Ultra 9's unlocked multiplier allows overclocking, while the i5's locked multiplier does not.

For users prioritizing measured performance, the Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the only part with data supporting a choice. For users prioritizing a 45 W power envelope, DDR4 compatibility, or a desktop socket, the i5-14501TE offers those specific attributes, but no benchmark evidence exists to place it ahead of the Ultra 9 in any workload.