Intel Core i9-14900 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a clear split between the Intel Core i9-14900 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H across 17 benchmark comparisons. The desktop part claims 13 wins, while the mobile part takes 4. The margins tell a more nuanced story than the win count alone.

The largest single advantage belongs to the Core i9-14900 in PassMark integer math. Its score of 175010 against 62070 for the Core Ultra 5 336H represents a 182% delta. This is the most lopsided result in the entire comparison, and it highlights the raw computational throughput advantage of the desktop processor's wider configuration.

Multi-core rendering workloads also favor the Core i9-14900 heavily. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i9-14900 scores 4793 versus 2418, a 98.2% delta. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a 57.9% delta, with scores of 15910 and 10076. Cinebench R23 multi-core narrows the gap to 29.5%, with 31070 against 23991, suggesting that the mobile chip scales better under longer sustained loads relative to its shorter-duration performance.

Data compression follows a similar pattern. The i9-14900 posts 550271 in PassMark data compression, 96.3% ahead of the 280340 scored by the Core Ultra 5 336H. Random string sorting shows a 77.5% delta in favor of the i9-14900, with 61060 versus 34402. Encryption work favors the desktop chip by 57.5%, at 33540 against 21291. Floating point math gives the i9-14900 a 45.9% lead, 120262 versus 82415.

The Core Ultra 5 336H takes its wins in single-core and specific scalar workloads. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the mobile chip at 3387 against 2212 for the i9-14900, a 34.7% delta in its favor. Cinebench R15 single-core also goes to the Core Ultra 5 336H, 341 versus 315, a 7.6% delta. PassMark find prime numbers favors the mobile part by 37.1%, 299 versus 188. PassMark physics gives the Core Ultra 5 336H a smaller 7.3% win, 2682 against 2486.

The mixed single-core picture is notable. The i9-14900 wins PassMark single-thread by 7.7%, 4323 versus 4013, while losing both Cinebench single-core tests. This indicates that the newer Panther Lake architecture has a substantial per-clock instruction throughput advantage in some workloads, but not uniformly across all single-threaded tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i9-14900 is the clear choice for heavily threaded production workloads. Its 24 cores and 32 threads give it a structural advantage in parallel rendering, as shown by the Cinebench multi-core results. The 182% integer math lead and 96.3% compression lead reinforce this profile. Any workload that scales with core count and memory bandwidth will favor the desktop processor.

The Core Ultra 5 336H wins in scenarios that stress single-core efficiency and specific instruction patterns. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3387 is 53% higher than the i9-14900's 2212 in that same test. The prime number calculation win suggests that certain integer loops execute more efficiently on the newer architecture. Physics simulation also runs slightly faster on the mobile chip, with a 7.3% delta.

For users running a mix of single-threaded and multi-threaded code, the i9-14900 still holds the aggregate advantage. Its average benchmark score of 58115 places it at the 92nd percentile among all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 336H sits at 34485 and the 84th percentile. The nearest rivals for the i9-14900 include the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M at 58323 (-0.4%) and the AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D at 58386 (-0.5%). The Core Ultra 5 336H sits close to the Intel Core i7-13700HX at 34554 (-0.2%) and the Intel Core i5-13450HX at 34333 (0.4%).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900 wins all four multi-core benchmarks recorded. Its lead ranges from 29.5% in Cinebench R23 multi-core to 98.2% in Cinebench R15 multi-core. PassMark multithread shows a 56.2% delta in its favor.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 5 336H beat the i9-14900 in any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins four tests. These are Cinebench R15 single-core (341 versus 315), Cinebench R23 single-core (3387 versus 2212), PassMark find prime numbers (299 versus 188), and PassMark physics (2682 versus 2486).

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

A: The i9-14900 scores 4323 in PassMark single-thread, which is 7.7% ahead of the Core Ultra 5 336H's 4013. The same result appears under both the passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread test names.

Q: What is the overall performance ranking difference between the two?

A: The i9-14900 has an average benchmark score of 58115 and ranks at the 92nd percentile. The Core Ultra 5 336H has an average benchmark score of 34485 and ranks at the 84th percentile.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The i9-14900 has 24 cores and 32 threads. The Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The i9-14900 also supports Hyper-Threading, which explains the thread count exceeding the core count, while the Core Ultra 5 336H has equal core and thread counts.

Q: How close is the Core Ultra 5 336H to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 5 336H is within 0.8% of all four nearest rivals. The Intel Core i7-13700HX is 0.2% ahead, the Intel Core i5-13450HX is 0.4% behind, the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X is 0.7% behind, and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 is 0.8% behind.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across every major specification category. The i9-14900 uses a 24-core, 32-thread configuration with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 336H uses 16 cores and 16 threads with a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Thermal design power differs substantially: the i9-14900 is rated at 65 W, while the Core Ultra 5 336H is rated at 25 W.

The socket and form factor separation is absolute. The i9-14900 fits Intel Socket 1700 and targets the desktop market segment. The Core Ultra 5 336H uses Intel BGA 2540 and targets mobile. The i9-14900 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode, with ECC support. The Core Ultra 5 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in dual-channel mode, with no ECC support, and has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. PCIe lane counts also differ: the i9-14900 provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 336H provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The i9-14900 uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra 5 336H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The i9-14900 launched with a launch MSRP of $549; the Core Ultra 5 336H has no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors are active in production and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two parts spans several generations. The i9-14900 is built on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, and belongs to the Core 14th Gen family. The Core Ultra 5 336H uses Panther Lake, the Panther Lake-H variant, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3. The process node difference is significant: the i9-14900 uses a 10 nm process from Intel's foundry, while the Core Ultra 5 336H uses a 3 nm process, also from Intel.

Cache configurations reflect the different design philosophies. The i9-14900 has an 80 KB L1 cache per core, a 2 MB L2 cache per core, and a 36 MB shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 336H has a larger 192 KB L1 cache per core, a 2.5 MB L2 cache per core, but a smaller 18 MB shared L3 cache. The die size is recorded for the i9-14900 at 257 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Core Ultra 5 336H.

The release dates place these products far apart. The i9-14900 was released on 2024-01-07, while the Core Ultra 5 336H has a release date of 2026-01-04. The part numbers also differ: SRN3V for the i9-14900 and SA4RD for the Core Ultra 5 336H. The i9-14900's generation listing is "Core i9 (Raptor Lake Refresh)", while the Core Ultra 5 336H is listed as "Ultra 5 (Panther Lake-H)". The combination of a smaller process node, larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, and higher single-core scores in several tests indicates that Panther Lake delivers a meaningful per-core architectural improvement, even as the desktop part retains a decisive lead in aggregate throughput.