Intel Core i5-14600 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

The Intel Core i5-14600 and Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus represent two distinct approaches to desktop processing, separated by a full architecture generation. The recorded data shows a clear split: the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus dominates the multi-threaded and modern workload space, while the Core i5-14600 retains a significant, albeit narrow, lead in specific legacy single-threaded tests. This analysis examines where each processor wins, the magnitude of those victories, and the underlying architectural differences that explain the results.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the definitive winner in overall compute-heavy tasks. It takes 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, including all PassMark sub-tests. Its victories are particularly pronounced in floating-point math, where it scores 162,692 against the i5-14600’s 85,759, a 47.3% advantage. The data also shows substantial wins in data compression (568,721 vs. 434,620) and data encryption (42,144 vs. 25,082), indicating superior throughput for data-intensive work. Its multi-core Cinebench scores, especially the R20 result of 18,442 vs. 12,794, show a 30.6% lead, confirming a strong multi-threaded performance profile. The Ultra 5 also leads in the aggregate average benchmark score, posting 66,855 compared to 44,889 for the i5-14600, and sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs versus the 89th for the i5-14600.

The Intel Core i5-14600 wins only two head-to-head tests, both in Cinebench single-core workloads. It beats the Ultra 5 in Cinebench R15 single-core with a score of 433 vs. 328, a 32% advantage. More strikingly, it wins Cinebench R23 single-core with 4,300 points against the Ultra 5’s 2,261, a massive 90.2% lead. These results indicate that the i5-14600 has a significant edge in this specific, older rendering benchmark’s single-thread test, a result that does not carry over to the newer Cinebench R20 single-core test, where the Ultra 5 wins 2,603 to 1,806. The i5-14600 also holds a slim lead over its nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-12900KS, sitting just 0.5% behind in average score, whereas the Ultra 5’s nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 4465P, which it trails by only 0.1%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher overall benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 66,855, compared to 44,889 for the Intel Core i5-14600. It also ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the i5-14600 ranks in the 89th.

Q: In which single benchmark does the Intel Core i5-14600 achieve its largest victory?

A: The i5-14600’s largest win is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 4,300 points versus 2,261 for the Ultra 5 250K Plus. This represents a 90.2% advantage.

Q: How large is the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus’s lead in multi-core rendering?

A: The lead varies by test. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Ultra 5 scores 18,442 versus 12,794, a 30.6% advantage. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the lead narrows to just 1.3%, with scores of 30,867 and 30,464 respectively.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus win all the PassMark tests?

A: Yes. The Ultra 5 250K Plus wins every recorded PassMark sub-test, including data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, find prime numbers, floating-point math, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread tests.

Q: What is the difference in their launch prices?

A: The Intel Core i5-14600 has a launch MSRP of $255, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a lower launch MSRP of $199.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, which is slightly higher than the 5.20 GHz boost clock of the Intel Core i5-14600.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victories for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus are found in the PassMark suite. In floating-point math, it scores 162,692, a 47.3% advantage over the i5-14600’s 85,759. The gap is even wider in the find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 5 scores 486 versus 155, a 68.1% lead. Extended instructions also show a major divergence, with the Ultra 5 posting 44,565 against 25,674, a 42.4% difference. These results point to a substantially more efficient execution engine for complex and repetitive mathematical operations.

In data-oriented tasks, the Ultra 5’s lead is also clear. Data encryption shows a 40.5% advantage (42,144 vs. 25,082), and data compression shows a 23.6% advantage (568,721 vs. 434,620). The multithread PassMark score of 51,596 vs. 35,848 confirms a 30.5% overall throughput lead. The Cinebench multi-core results are more nuanced. The R15 and R20 tests show strong wins for the Ultra 5, with deltas of 33.8% and 30.6% respectively. However, the R23 multi-core test is nearly a tie, with the Ultra 5 winning by only 1.3% (30,867 vs. 30,464).

The single-core picture is inconsistent across test versions. The i5-14600 dominates Cinebench R15 and R23 single-core, with leads of 32% and 90.2% respectively, yet it loses Cinebench R20 single-core by 30.6%, with the Ultra 5 scoring 2,603 to 1,806. In the PassMark single-thread test, the Ultra 5 wins 4,757 to 4,167, a 12.4% lead. This pattern suggests that the i5-14600’s single-core advantage is specific to certain instruction paths or scheduling behaviors in older Cinebench versions, while the Ultra 5’s newer architecture performs better in the more recent R20 benchmark and general single-thread tests.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ significantly in core configuration. The Core i5-14600 has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Ultra 5 has a higher base clock of 4.20 GHz versus 2.70 GHz for the i5-14600, and a slightly higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz versus 5.20 GHz. The Ultra 5 also carries a higher TDP of 125 watts compared to 65 watts for the i5-14600.

Memory support is another major difference. The i5-14600 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 5 supports DDR5 only. Both use a dual-channel memory bus, but the Ultra 5 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, a figure not listed for the i5-14600. PCIe connectivity also differs: the i5-14600 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 5 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are different as well, with the i5-14600 using UHD Graphics 770 and the Ultra 5 using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

The sockets are incompatible. The i5-14600 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 uses Intel Socket 1851. The multiplier is locked on the i5-14600, whereas the Ultra 5 has an unlocked multiplier. Their part numbers are SRN44 for the i5-14600 and SA4UZ for the Ultra 5. The release dates also differ, with the i5-14600 launching on 2024-01-07 and the Ultra 5 on 2026-03-10.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two parts is substantial. The Core i5-14600 is based on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, and is manufactured on Intel’s 10 nm process. In contrast, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename and is built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. The Ultra 5’s transistor count is listed at 17,800 million, while no transistor count is recorded for the i5-14600. The die sizes are similar, with the i5-14600 at 257 mm² and the Ultra 5 at 243 mm².

Cache hierarchies are configured differently. The i5-14600 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, with 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 5 has larger per-core allocations: 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core, with 30 MB of shared L3 cache. This larger cache layout aligns with the Ultra 5’s higher core count and newer design.

Both processors support ECC memory and are marked as active production parts for the desktop market. The architectural shift from Raptor Lake to Arrow Lake is evident in the benchmark results, particularly the Ultra 5’s dominance in floating-point and encryption workloads, which benefit from the newer 3 nm process and TSMC foundry. The i5-14600’s strong showing in specific single-core Cinebench tests, despite its older node, indicates that raw clock speed and legacy scheduling can still overcome architectural changes in narrow scenarios.