Intel Core i7-14700F vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data records 17 benchmark comparisons between the Intel Core i7-14700F and the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H. The i7-14700F wins 11 of those tests, while the Core Ultra X9 378H wins 6. The overall average benchmark score confirms the split: the i7-14700F averages 53620 points against 47468 for the Core Ultra X9 378H, a difference of roughly 12.9%.

The most decisive victory for the i7-14700F comes in PassMark integer math. It scores 155808 against 92603 for the Core Ultra X9 378H, a delta of 68.3%. That is the largest margin in either direction across the entire comparison. Data compression shows a similar pattern, with the i7-14700F scoring 505885 versus 386591, a 30.9% advantage. Random string sorting also favors the desktop part, 55918 to 44648, a 25.2% gap.

The Cinebench suite is consistently in favor of the i7-14700F, though by a narrower margin. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the i7-14700F scores 35122 against 32553, a 7.9% lead. Single-core R23 shows the same 7.9% delta, with 4958 versus 4595. The pattern repeats across R15 and R20: multicore R15 is 3540 to 3281, single-core R15 is 499 to 462, multicore R20 is 14751 to 13672, and single-core R20 is 2082 to 1929. Each of those results lands at a 7.9% or 8.0% advantage for the i7-14700F.

PassMark multithread follows the same trend, with the i7-14700F scoring 41317 versus 38298, a 7.9% lead. Data encryption is nearly a tie: 30144 for the i7-14700F against 29840 for the Core Ultra X9 378H, a 1.0% margin.

The Core Ultra X9 378H takes its largest win in PassMark find prime numbers, scoring 357 against 176 for the i7-14700F. The delta is 50.7% in favor of the mobile part. That is the second-largest margin in the entire dataset, and it is a complete reversal of the integer math result. Physics shows another substantial win for the Core Ultra X9 378H, 3404 to 2455, a 27.9% advantage. Extended instructions go to the Core Ultra X9 378H as well, 31315 versus 28564, an 8.8% lead. Floating point math is closer, 114500 to 107005, a 6.5% win for the Core Ultra X9 378H. PassMark single-thread also favors the mobile chip, 4453 to 4257, a 4.4% margin.

The benchmark profile is striking for its asymmetry. The i7-14700F dominates workloads that scale with core count and thread count, while the Core Ultra X9 378H wins in scalar and specialized instruction paths. The single-thread PassMark result is the only test where the Core Ultra X9 378H wins a single-core contest, and it does so by a modest 4.4%. The Cinebench single-core tests, by contrast, all go to the i7-14700F.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700F wins 11 of the 17 recorded comparisons. The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins 6.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap in the comparison?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark integer math, where the i7-14700F scores 155808 against 92603, a 68.3% advantage. The largest win for the Core Ultra X9 378H is in find prime numbers, 357 versus 176, a 50.7% margin.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23?

A: In Cinebench R23 multicore, the i7-14700F scores 35122 and the Core Ultra X9 378H scores 32553, a 7.9% lead for the desktop chip. In single-core R23, the i7-14700F scores 4958 versus 4595, also a 7.9% lead.

Q: Does the Core Ultra X9 378H win any single-core tests?

A: Yes. PassMark single-thread favors the Core Ultra X9 378H, 4453 to 4257, a 4.4% margin. However, all three Cinebench single-core tests (R15, R20, R23) go to the i7-14700F.

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

A: The i7-14700F has an average benchmark score of 53620. The Core Ultra X9 378H has an average benchmark score of 47468.

Q: How do their overall standings compare against all CPUs?

A: The i7-14700F sits at the 91st percentile among all CPUs. The Core Ultra X9 378H sits at the 89th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The i7-14700F is the stronger choice for threaded throughput. Its 20 cores and 28 threads give it a structural edge in multithreaded rendering and compression workloads. Cinebench R23 multicore, at 35122, is its strongest rendering result, and the 30.9% lead in data compression reinforces that profile. Integer math is the clearest use case: the 68.3% margin over the Core Ultra X9 378H suggests workloads built around integer operations will see a substantial benefit. Random string sorting, which also favors the i7-14700F by 25.2%, points to sorting and data manipulation tasks as another strong fit. PassMark multithread confirms the general pattern, with the i7-14700F ahead by 7.9%.

The Core Ultra X9 378H wins in more specialized areas. Find prime numbers is its standout result, with a 50.7% advantage. That suggests workloads involving prime number generation or related algorithmic loops would favor this chip. Physics simulation also goes to the Core Ultra X9 378H, 3404 to 2455, a 27.9% gap, which indicates an advantage in physics calculation paths. Extended instructions and floating point math both favor the mobile part, by 8.8% and 6.5% respectively, so code that relies on SIMD-style extensions or heavy float arithmetic may run better on the Core Ultra X9 378H. The 4.4% single-thread PassMark win adds a narrow edge in lightly threaded integer tasks.

The use-case split is therefore clear. The i7-14700F suits environments where many threads can be kept busy: rendering, compression, sorting, and general multithreaded integer work. The Core Ultra X9 378H suits specialized scalar and floating-point workloads, plus physics and prime-number computations. The overall average benchmark score favors the i7-14700F, and its 91st percentile standing versus the 89th percentile for the Core Ultra X9 378H reflects that same ordering.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification category. The i7-14700F has 20 cores and 28 threads, while the Core Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clock is 2.10 GHz for the i7-14700F and 2.00 GHz for the Core Ultra X9 378H. Boost clock is 5.40 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. Thermal design power is 65 W for the desktop chip and 25 W for the mobile chip. The i7-14700F uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra X9 378H uses Intel BGA 2540.

Memory support is also different. The i7-14700F supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra X9 378H supports LPDDR5X. The i7-14700F supports ECC memory; the Core Ultra X9 378H does not. The memory bus is dual-channel for both, but the Core Ultra X9 378H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, while the i7-14700F has no bandwidth figure in the database. PCIe configuration differs as well: the i7-14700F provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), and the Core Ultra X9 378H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics separates the two. The i7-14700F has no integrated graphics, while the Core Ultra X9 378H includes an Arc B390. Market segment differs accordingly: desktop for the i7-14700F, mobile for the Core Ultra X9 378H. The release dates are distinct, with the i7-14700F listed as 2024-01-07 and the Core Ultra X9 378H listed as 2026-04-03. The i7-14700F has a launch MSRP of $359; the Core Ultra X9 378H has no recorded launch MSRP. Both are listed as active production parts, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The i7-14700F belongs to the Core 14th Gen series, built on Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-R codename and a 10 nm process node. The Core Ultra X9 378H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, with the Panther Lake codename and a 3 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel. The die size for the i7-14700F is 257 mm²; the Core Ultra X9 378H has no recorded die size.

Cache organization differs significantly. The i7-14700F has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 33 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra X9 378H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L1 and L2 figures favor the Core Ultra X9 378H, while the shared L3 cache favors the i7-14700F by a wide margin.

The generation labels in the database reflect the differing product lines: Core i7 (Raptor Lake Refresh) for the i7-14700F, and Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H) for the Core Ultra X9 378H. The process node difference is substantial, with the Core Ultra X9 378H using a 3 nm process against the 10 nm process of the i7-14700F. That node advantage likely explains how the mobile part achieves competitive results in several tests despite having fewer cores and a 25 W TDP. The i7-14700F compensates with more cores, more threads, a higher boost clock, and a much larger shared L3 cache.