Intel Core i7-14701TE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core i7-14701TE has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL has 12 cores and 14 threads. The Core i7 has fewer physical cores but more threads, while the Core Ultra 5 has more physical cores but fewer total threads.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The Intel Core i7-14701TE has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL has a TDP of 15 watts. This makes the Core Ultra 5 a significantly lower-power part.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core i7-14701TE supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL does not support ECC memory.

Q: What are the integrated graphics solutions in each processor?

A: The Intel Core i7-14701TE includes UHD Graphics 770, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL includes Arc Xe-LPG 64EU graphics.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-14701TE has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL has a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The Core i7 also has a higher base clock at 2.10 GHz versus 1.60 GHz for the Core Ultra 5.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Core Ultra 5 135UL?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL has a launch MSRP of $331.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i7-14701TE is built on the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, and belongs to the Core 14th Gen family. It uses a 10 nm process node and is fabricated by Intel. The processor uses Intel Socket 1700 and has a die size of 257 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL, in contrast, is based on the Meteor Lake architecture, specifically the Meteor Lake-PS variant, and is part of the Core Ultra Series 1. It uses a 7 nm process node, also fabricated by Intel, and fits into Intel Socket 1851. The die size for the Core Ultra 5 is not recorded in the database.

Cache organization differs substantially between the two. The Core i7-14701TE 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 5 135UL has 112 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, but only 12 MB of shared L3 cache. This means the Core i7 holds a significant advantage in total L3 cache capacity, which can benefit workloads with large working sets that need to be kept close to the cores.

Memory support also separates the two. The Core i7-14701TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Core Ultra 5 135UL supports DDR5 memory that depends on the motherboard, also in a dual-channel configuration, and the database records a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s for this part. The Core i7 does not have a recorded memory bandwidth figure.

PCI Express capabilities differ as well. The Core i7-14701TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 5 135UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). This gives the Core i7 a clear advantage in available PCIe bandwidth and generation support for expansion devices.

ECC memory support is present on the Core i7-14701TE but absent on the Core Ultra 5 135UL. The Core Ultra 5 does feature a different integrated graphics solution, using Arc Xe-LPG 64EU, while the Core i7 uses UHD Graphics 770. The Core Ultra 5 also has a lower base clock of 1.60 GHz and a lower boost clock of 4.40 GHz compared to the Core i7's 2.10 GHz base and 5.20 GHz boost. The production status for both is recorded as Active, with the Core i7 released on 2024-06-30 and the Core Ultra 5 released on 2024-04-07.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a full set of benchmark results for the Intel Core i7-14701TE, but no benchmark entries for the Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL. Therefore, direct head-to-head comparison across specific workloads cannot be drawn from recorded measurements. The Core Ultra 5 has no scores in the database, and its average benchmark score is recorded as 0.

The Core i7-14701TE, by contrast, shows a broad performance profile across Cinebench and Passmark tests. In Cinebench R15, it scores 1716 in multicore and 242 in singlecore. In Cinebench R20, it scores 7154 in multicore and 1010 in singlecore. In Cinebench R23, it scores 17035 in multicore and 2405 in singlecore. These results show a processor that scales well with multithreaded workloads, with the multicore scores roughly seven times higher than singlecore scores across the Cinebench suite.

Passmark results for the Core i7-14701TE further characterize its strengths. It scores 220520 in data compression, 11699 in data encryption, 14354 in extended instructions, 143 in find prime numbers, 50219 in floating point math, 65792 in integer math, 20042 in multithread, 1860 in physics, 22760 in random string sorting, and 2637 in single thread. The processor's overall average benchmark score is 26013, and it sits at the 78th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Without recorded benchmark data for the Core Ultra 5 135UL, the head-to-head section relies on the Core i7's measured results as the only active benchmark data between the two. The Core Ultra 5's percentile rank is recorded at 50, which is below the Core i7's 78th percentile, but this rank is not accompanied by any individual test scores. The nearest rivals for the Core i7 include AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 with an average score of 25981 and a delta of 0.1%, AMD Ryzen 5 8640HS with an average score of 26106 and a delta of -0.4%, AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 5655GE with an average score of 25880 and a delta of 0.5%, and AMD Ryzen 5 8540U with an average score of 26187 and a delta of -0.7%. These rivals are within roughly a percentage point of the Core i7's average score, indicating that the Core i7 sits in a competitive performance band.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several core specifications. The Core i7-14701TE uses 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 135UL uses 12 cores and 14 threads. Base clocks differ, with the Core i7 at 2.10 GHz and the Core Ultra 5 at 1.60 GHz. Boost clocks also differ, with the Core i7 at 5.20 GHz and the Core Ultra 5 at 4.40 GHz.

TDP is a major differentiator: the Core i7-14701TE is rated at 45 watts, while the Core Ultra 5 135UL is rated at 15 watts. The sockets are different, with the Core i7 using Intel Socket 1700 and the Core Ultra 5 using Intel Socket 1851. The architectures differ, with the Core i7 using Raptor Lake and the Core Ultra 5 using Meteor Lake. The process nodes differ, with the Core i7 at 10 nm and the Core Ultra 5 at 7 nm. The die size for the Core i7 is 257 mm², while the Core Ultra 5 has no recorded die size.

Cache differs in L1 and L3. The Core i7 has 80 KB of L1 per core and 33 MB of shared L3, while the Core Ultra 5 has 112 KB of L1 per core and 12 MB of shared L3. Both have 2 MB of L2 per core. Memory support differs: the Core i7 supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 supports DDR5 depending on the motherboard. The Core Ultra 5 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Core i7 has none recorded.

ECC memory support is present on the Core i7 but absent on the Core Ultra 5. PCIe support differs, with the Core i7 offering Gen 5 with 16 lanes and the Core Ultra 5 offering Gen 4 with 8 lanes. Integrated graphics differ, with the Core i7 using UHD Graphics 770 and the Core Ultra 5 using Arc Xe-LPG 64EU. The release dates differ, with the Core i7 released on 2024-06-30 and the Core Ultra 5 released on 2024-04-07. The Core Ultra 5 has a launch MSRP of $331, while the Core i7 has no recorded launch MSRP. Part numbers also differ: the Core i7 is Q49GSRNJL and the Core Ultra 5 is SRN97.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-14701TE wins on raw compute performance based on recorded data. Its measured scores across Cinebench and Passmark place it at the 78th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 26013. It offers a higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz, a higher base clock of 2.10 GHz, and a much larger L3 cache of 33 MB. These attributes favor workloads that benefit from high single-thread speed and large shared cache, such as general desktop responsiveness, lightly threaded applications, and tasks with significant data reuse. The Core i7 also supports ECC memory, which matters for systems that require error-correcting memory, and it supports DDR4 as well as DDR5, offering more flexibility in memory selection. Its PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes gives it an advantage for high-bandwidth expansion and newer storage or graphics devices.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL wins on power efficiency and platform characteristics. Its TDP of 15 watts is one-third of the Core i7's 45 watts, which makes it suitable for thermally constrained or low-power desktop systems. It uses a 7 nm process node, a smaller node than the Core i7's 10 nm node. It has more physical cores at 12, which could benefit workloads that scale with core count but not thread count, though no benchmark data is recorded to confirm this in practice. The Core Ultra 5 also uses Arc Xe-LPG 64EU integrated graphics, which may offer different graphics capabilities compared to UHD Graphics 770, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded. Its 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth is recorded in the database, and it has a launch MSRP of $331.

The Core Ultra 5 has a higher L1 cache per core at 112 KB versus 80 KB on the Core i7, which can help with per-core working sets. It also uses the newer Meteor Lake architecture and the newer Intel Socket 1851. The Core Ultra 5 is positioned at the 50th percentile among all CPUs, which is below the Core i7's 78th percentile, but this percentile is not backed by any individual recorded benchmark scores in the database.

For use-case separation, the data indicates the Core i7-14701TE is the stronger choice for compute-heavy desktop workloads where single-thread performance, cache capacity, and PCIe bandwidth matter. The Core Ultra 5 135UL is the more appropriate fit for systems where power draw is the primary constraint and where the newer socket and lower TDP are more important than measured performance. The absence of benchmark results for the Core Ultra 5 means that any performance advantage for the Core Ultra 5 cannot be quantified from the database; only its architectural and specification advantages are visible.