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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records 17 head-to-head comparisons between the Intel Core i9-14900F and the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H. The i9-14900F claims 16 wins, while the Ultra 5 336H takes a single victory. The margins are often substantial, reflecting the different positioning of these two processors.

In multi-core rendering workloads, the i9-14900F delivers a dominant performance. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 3986 against 2418 for the Ultra 5 336H, a 64.8% advantage. The gap persists in Cinebench R20 multi-core (16611 vs 10076, 64.9% ahead) and Cinebench R23 multi-core (39551 vs 23991, 64.9% ahead). These results indicate a consistent scaling advantage across the Cinebench suite.

Single-core performance also favors the i9-14900F, though the relative margins are similar. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 562 vs 341 (64.8% delta), R20 single-core shows 2344 vs 1422 (64.8% delta), and R23 single-core shows 5583 vs 3387 (64.8% delta). The consistency of the 64.8% delta across these three tests suggests a fundamental clock and architecture advantage rather than a workload-specific effect.

The Passmark suite reveals the largest single margin in the entire comparison. In integer math, the i9-14900F scores 177066 versus 62070 for the Ultra 5 336H, a 185.3% lead. This is the most lopsided result in the dataset. Data compression also shows a massive gap: 564207 vs 280340, a 101.3% delta. Random string sorting follows at 85.2% (63728 vs 34402). Floating-point math favors the i9-14900F by 45.1% (119550 vs 82415), while data encryption shows a 62.7% delta (34644 vs 21291).

Extended instructions are closer, with the i9-14900F ahead by 26.7% (31084 vs 24542). Multithreaded Passmark scores show a 63% delta (46532 vs 28545). Physics is the narrowest win for the i9-14900F, with only an 8.1% delta (2899 vs 2682). Single-threaded Passmark scores show a 12.3% delta (4506 vs 4013), a much smaller margin than the Cinebench single-core results suggest.

The lone win for the Ultra 5 336H comes in the Passmark prime number test, where it scores 299 versus 209 for the i9-14900F, a 30.1% advantage. This is an unusual outcome given the overall pattern, and it points to a specific workload characteristic rather than general superiority.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from distinct Intel architectures and target different market segments. The i9-14900F is based on Raptor Lake, with the codename Raptor Lake-R, and belongs to the Core 14th Gen series. It uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform and is classified as a desktop part. The Ultra 5 336H uses the Panther Lake architecture, carries the Panther Lake codename, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3. It is a mobile processor on the Intel BGA 2540 socket.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The i9-14900F is built on a 10 nm node, while the Ultra 5 336H uses a 3 nm node. Both are fabricated by Intel. The die size for the i9-14900F is recorded as 257 mm², while the die size for the Ultra 5 336H is not listed in the database.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The i9-14900F has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The i9-14900F therefore supports simultaneous multithreading, while the Ultra 5 336H does not, according to the recorded thread count. This explains part of the multi-core performance gap.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The i9-14900F has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 5 336H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 5 336H has a larger per-core L1 and L2 allocation, but the i9-14900F has twice the total L3 capacity.

Clock speeds favor the i9-14900F. Its base clock is 2.00 GHz with a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. The Ultra 5 336H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The power envelope is markedly different: the i9-14900F has a TDP of 65, while the Ultra 5 336H has a TDP of 25, reflecting the desktop versus mobile design.

Memory support differs in type. The i9-14900F supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use a dual-channel memory bus. The Ultra 5 336H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the i9-14900F has no bandwidth figure in the database. ECC memory is supported on the i9-14900F but not on the Ultra 5 336H.

PCIe lanes also differ. The i9-14900F offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 5 336H offers Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are absent on the i9-14900F (listed as N/A), while the Ultra 5 336H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. The release dates are recorded as 2024-01-07 for the i9-14900F and 2026-01-04 for the Ultra 5 336H.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900F has an average benchmark score of 60008, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has an average of 34485. The i9-14900F also ranks at the 92nd percentile among all CPUs, compared to the 84th percentile for the Ultra 5 336H.

Q: How much faster is the i9-14900F in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The i9-14900F scores 39551 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Ultra 5 336H scores 23991. This is a 64.9% advantage for the i9-14900F.

Q: Is there any workload where the Ultra 5 336H outperforms the i9-14900F?

A: Yes, in the Passmark prime number test, the Ultra 5 336H scores 299 versus 209 for the i9-14900F, a 30.1% advantage. This is the only benchmark in the dataset where the Ultra 5 336H wins.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The i9-14900F has 24 cores and 32 threads. The Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The i9-14900F supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Ultra 5 336H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. The i9-14900F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A in the database.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 24 (i9-14900F) vs 16 (Ultra 5 336H)
• Threads: 32 vs 16
• Base clock: 2.00 GHz vs 1.90 GHz
• Boost clock: 5.80 GHz vs 4.60 GHz
• TDP: 65 vs 25
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 vs Intel BGA 2540
• Architecture: Raptor Lake vs Panther Lake
• Process node: 10 nm vs 3 nm
• L1 cache: 80 KB (per core) vs 192 KB (per core)
• L2 cache: 2 MB (per core) vs 2.5 MB (per core)
• L3 cache: 36 MB (shared) vs 18 MB (shared)
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 vs DDR5, LPDDR5X
• Memory bandwidth: not listed vs 115.2 GB/s
• ECC memory: true vs false
• PCIe lanes: Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) vs Gen 5, 12 Lanes (CPU only)
• Integrated graphics: N/A vs Intel Xe3 Graphics
• Market segment: Desktop vs Mobile
• Release date: 2024-01-07 vs 2026-01-04
• Launch MSRP: $524 vs not listed
• Part number: SRN3W vs SA4RD

Where Each One Wins

The i9-14900F wins in nearly every recorded benchmark category. Its strengths are most pronounced in integer math, where it leads by 185.3%, and data compression, where it leads by 101.3%. These results indicate strong general-purpose compute and data-heavy workloads. Cinebench multi-core and single-core tests all show roughly 64.8% margins, which points to consistent performance scaling across rendering tasks. The i9-14900F also wins in encryption, floating-point math, multithreaded Passmark, random string sorting, extended instructions, physics, and single-threaded Passmark.

The Ultra 5 336H wins only in the prime number test, with a 30.1% edge. This suggests a specialization in certain integer-heavy algorithms that the Passmark prime number test exercises. However, this single win does not translate to broader advantages elsewhere. The Ultra 5 336H also has the benefit of integrated graphics, which the i9-14900F lacks, and a lower TDP of 25 versus 65, making it more suited to power-constrained mobile environments.

In terms of nearest rivals, the i9-14900F sits close to the AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (0.2% behind), AMD Ryzen 7 8745HX (0.2% behind), AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX3D (0.6% ahead), and Intel Xeon Gold 6338T (0.9% behind) in average benchmark score. The Ultra 5 336H is near the Intel Core i7-13700HX (0.2% behind), Intel Core i5-13450HX (0.4% ahead), AMD Ryzen 7 3700X (0.7% ahead), and AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 (0.8% ahead). These rival comparisons show that the i9-14900F competes with high-end desktop and mobile HX-class parts, while the Ultra 5 336H aligns with mid-range mobile and older desktop parts.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear separation in performance tiers. The Intel Core i9-14900F is a high-core-count desktop processor with 24 cores and 32 threads, a 5.80 GHz boost clock, and a 65 TDP. It dominates the benchmark suite, winning 16 of 17 comparisons, with its largest lead in integer math at 185.3%. The i9-14900F is the choice for workloads that demand maximum multi-threaded throughput, such as rendering, data compression, and encryption, based on the recorded scores.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H is a mobile processor with 16 cores and 16 threads, a 4.60 GHz boost clock, and a 25 TDP. It wins only the prime number test, but it offers integrated graphics and a smaller power envelope. Its average benchmark score of 34485 places it in a different competitive class, near mobile HX and older desktop parts rather than flagship desktop silicon.

The verdict from the measurements is straightforward. For desktop users prioritizing raw compute performance across a wide range of benchmarks, the i9-14900F is the stronger part. For mobile users who need a more power-efficient processor with integrated graphics, the Ultra 5 336H serves that segment. The i9-14900F also carries a recorded launch MSRP of $524, while the Ultra 5 336H has no listed launch MSRP. The choice between them depends on the platform and the performance requirements, as the benchmark data shows no overlap in their primary strengths.