Intel Core i7-14701E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255H Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H and Intel Core i7-14701E represent two distinct design philosophies from the same manufacturer, targeting different market segments. The 255H is a mobile-first Arrow Lake processor built on a 3 nm TSMC process, while the 14701E is a desktop Raptor Lake Refresh part on Intel’s 10 nm node. Benchmark data reveals a clear split: the desktop chip dominates in raw multi-core rendering, while the mobile chip counters with superior performance in specialized workloads and efficiency-oriented tasks. With 9 benchmark wins for the Ultra 7 255H and 8 for the i7-14701E, the comparison is closer than the architectural gulf suggests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victories belong to the Intel Core i7-14701E in Cinebench rendering tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the desktop part scores 22195 against the Ultra 7 255H’s 9240, a massive 58.4% advantage. This gap persists across the entire Cinebench suite: R20 multi-core shows 9321 versus 6381 (31.5% ahead), and R15 multi-core shows 2237 versus 1515 (32.3% ahead). Single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern, with the i7-14701E leading by 41.2% in R23 (3133 vs 1843), 31.6% in R20 (1315 vs 900), and 20.3% in R15 (315 vs 251). These are not marginal differences; they indicate the desktop chip’s higher sustained power envelope and clock speeds translate directly into rendering throughput.

However, the Ultra 7 255H fights back in PassMark’s specialized instruction tests. The most striking win is in PassMark data encryption, where the mobile chip scores 23395 versus 14862, a 57.4% advantage. Floating point math follows closely, with the 255H at 98796 against 61873, a 59.7% lead. The biggest proportional win comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where the 255H scores 303 versus 176, a 72.2% improvement. These results suggest the Arrow Lake architecture’s newer instruction handling and memory subsystem provide significant advantages in algorithmic workloads that do not scale linearly with core count.

The split continues in mixed workloads. PassMark multithread favors the Ultra 7 255H at 30703 versus 26112 (17.6% ahead), and random string sorting goes to the mobile chip by 23.7% (36058 vs 29158). Extended instructions also favor the 255H by 28.2% (23755 vs 18528). Data compression is a narrow win for the Ultra 7 255H at 298850 versus 282939, a 5.6% margin. The i7-14701E takes PassMark integer math by a slim 4.1% (81325 vs 77975) and PassMark physics by 6% (2399 vs 2254). Single-thread performance is nearly identical, with the Ultra 7 255H edging ahead by just 0.3% (4317 vs 4305 in both PassMark single-thread tests). This near-tie in single-threaded performance is remarkable given the i7-14701E’s higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz versus 5.10 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge fundamentally in their construction. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H uses Arrow Lake-H architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process, while the Intel Core i7-14701E uses Raptor Lake-R on Intel’s 10 nm node. This process difference contributes to the 255H’s lower TDP of 28 watts against the 14701E’s 65 watts, making the mobile chip significantly more power-efficient per unit of work. The 255H also uses a different foundry (TSMC) versus Intel for the desktop part, which may influence transistor characteristics and thermal behavior.

Core configurations differ sharply. The Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the i7-14701E has 8 cores and 16 threads. This means the 255H relies on physical cores for all threads, whereas the 14701E uses Hyper-Threading to double its thread count. The 255H’s higher core count explains its wins in multithreaded PassMark tests, but the 14701E’s higher per-core performance, evidenced by its Cinebench single-core dominance, allows it to win rendering benchmarks despite fewer physical cores.

Cache hierarchies reflect these design goals. The 255H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, with 24 MB of shared L3. The 14701E has smaller per-core caches at 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2, but a larger 33 MB shared L3. This larger L3 on the desktop chip likely aids in the Cinebench workloads that benefit from larger working sets residing closer to the cores. The 255H’s memory bandwidth is rated at 102.4 GB/s with dual-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X support, while the 14701E’s memory bandwidth is not specified in the data, though it supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

Integrated graphics differ substantially. The 255H includes Arc Graphics 140T, while the 14701E has UHD Graphics 770. This is notable for systems without discrete GPUs, though the benchmark data does not include graphics scores. PCIe lanes also vary: the 255H provides 20 CPU lanes on Gen 5, while the 14701E provides 16 CPU lanes on Gen 5, giving the mobile chip more headroom for expansion. Both support ECC memory, which is a professional consideration. The 255H is locked (multiplier unlocked: false), as is the 14701E, meaning neither offers manual overclocking.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Core i7-14701E is the superior processor for rendering and CPU-heavy productivity workloads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H excels in specialized computational tasks and multithreaded scaling. The i7-14701E’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22195 versus 9240 is not just a win; it is a 58.4% obliteration that makes the desktop chip the obvious choice for video rendering, 3D modeling, or any task that relies on sustained multi-core CPU throughput. The 14701E also holds a 41.2% single-core lead in R23, which benefits lightly threaded applications like legacy software or certain engineering tools.

Conversely, the Ultra 7 255H’s wins in encryption (57.4%), floating-point math (59.7%), and prime number finding (72.2%) indicate that its Arrow Lake architecture processes mathematical and cryptographic algorithms more efficiently. For workloads involving data encryption, scientific simulations, or complex mathematical modeling, the 255H delivers meaningfully higher throughput despite its lower TDP. Its 17.6% lead in PassMark multithread also suggests better parallel scaling in certain multi-threaded scenarios, even though Cinebench contradicts this.

Both chips sit at the 83rd percentile versus all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are close: 33537 for the 255H and 33206 for the 14701E. The nearest rivals for the 255H include the AMD Ryzen 5 240 (0% delta), AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS (-0.4%), and AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX (-0.4%). The 14701E’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950H (0% delta), AMD Ryzen 5 8645HS (-0.1%), and AMD Ryzen 7 7745HX (0.3%). These scores place both in the same performance tier on average, but the distribution of wins favors the 255H in nine benchmarks versus eight for the 14701E.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core i7-14701E scores 22195 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 58.4% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H’s 9240.

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

A: They are nearly identical. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H scores 4317, and the Intel Core i7-14701E scores 4305, giving the 255H a 0.3% advantage in PassMark single-thread tests.

Q: Which chip has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 physical cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core i7-14701E has 8 physical cores and 16 threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to reach the same thread count.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has a TDP of 28 watts, while the Intel Core i7-14701E has a TDP of 65 watts.

Q: Which processor wins in data encryption benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H wins PassMark data encryption with a score of 23395, which is 57.4% higher than the Intel Core i7-14701E’s 14862.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. Both the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H and the Intel Core i7-14701E have the multiplier unlocked field set to false, meaning neither supports manual overclocking.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-14701E is the clear winner for any workload dominated by Cinebench-style rendering. Its multi-core scores in R15, R20, and R23 all exceed the Ultra 7 255H by margins from 31.5% to 58.4%, making it the preferred choice for video encoding, 3D rendering, and batch photo processing. Its single-core Cinebench wins (20.3% to 41.2% ahead) also make it better suited for older applications that rely on a single fast core. Additionally, the 14701E wins PassMark integer math by 4.1% and PassMark physics by 6%, indicating an edge in general arithmetic and physics simulation tasks. For users building a desktop system with a 65-watt power budget and access to a Socket 1700 motherboard, this chip delivers the highest throughput in traditional CPU benchmarks.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H wins in scenarios that stress algorithmic efficiency and parallel scaling. Its 72.2% lead in prime number finding and 59.7% lead in floating-point math make it superior for scientific computing, financial modeling, and cryptography. The 57.4% advantage in data encryption is particularly notable for security-focused workloads. Its 28.2% lead in extended instructions and 23.7% lead in random string sorting indicate strong SIMD and string-handling performance. The 17.6% win in PassMark multithread, despite losing Cinebench multi-core, suggests that its 16 physical cores scale better in certain parallel workloads that do not rely on the same memory patterns as Cinebench. For a mobile platform with a 28-watt TDP, the 255H offers competitive average performance (33537 versus 33206) while using less than half the power, making it the better choice for laptops where battery life and thermal constraints are critical.