Intel Core i9-14900F vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between these two processors is emphatically one-sided. The Intel Core i9-14900F claims 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H secures a single victory. This distribution makes the use-case split unusually clear: the desktop i9-14900F is built for raw compute throughput, while the mobile Ultra 5 338H holds only a narrow specialty.

The i9-14900F dominates every Cinebench iteration. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 39,551 against 16,331 for the Ultra 5 338H, a 142.2% margin. Single-core Cinebench R23 shows an even larger gap, with the i9-14900F at 5,583 versus 2,044, a 173.1% difference. These results confirm that the desktop part leads in both heavily threaded rendering workloads and lightly threaded tasks.

PassMark tests tell a similar story. The i9-14900F wins integer math by 172.7% (177,066 versus 64,934), data compression by 104% (564,207 versus 276,539), and random string sorting by 87% (63,728 versus 34,082). Even the closest PassMark margin, floating point math, favors the i9-14900F by 42.2% (119,550 versus 84,067). The single-thread PassMark scores are nearly tied, 4,506 versus 4,180, a 7.8% edge for the desktop chip.

The sole win for the Ultra 5 338H comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 304 against 209, a 31.2% advantage. This is a narrow, specialized arithmetic workload. Every other benchmark, from physics (2,899 versus 2,697, a 7.5% margin) to multithreaded PassMark (46,532 versus 28,717, a 62% margin), goes to the i9-14900F.

For users seeking maximum compute capacity in multi-core rendering, data processing, or encryption, the i9-14900F is the clear choice. The Ultra 5 338H only shows an edge in prime-number finding, which does not translate into broader productivity advantages.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different Intel lineages. The Intel Core i9-14900F belongs to the Core 14th Gen series, built on Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-R codename. It uses a 10 nm process node and ships in a 257 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, based on Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename, fabricated on a 3 nm process node. The die size for the Ultra 5 is not recorded.

Core counts differ substantially. The i9-14900F provides 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Ultra 5 338H provides 12 cores and 12 threads. The desktop part has no integrated graphics, listing N/A for that field, whereas the mobile part includes Arc B370 integrated graphics. This reflects their different market segments: the i9-14900F is a desktop processor for Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 338H is a mobile processor for BGA 2540.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The i9-14900F uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 338H uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The per-core L1 and L2 caches are larger on the Ultra 5, but the total L3 cache is doubled on the i9-14900F.

Memory support separates the two further. The i9-14900F supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, with ECC memory enabled. The Ultra 5 338H supports LPDDR5X memory over a dual-channel bus with a recorded bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s, and ECC is not supported. PCIe lane availability also differs: the i9-14900F offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 5 338H offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only).

Clock speeds and power targets vary significantly. The i9-14900F has a 2.00 GHz base clock and a 5.80 GHz boost clock, with a 65 W TDP. The Ultra 5 338H has a 1.90 GHz base clock and a 4.70 GHz boost clock, with a 25 W TDP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The i9-14900F has a recorded launch MSRP of $524; the Ultra 5 338H has no launch MSRP recorded.

The Verdict

The data directs different buyers toward each processor, but the balance is heavily skewed. The Intel Core i9-14900F wins 16 benchmarks and holds a 92nd percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 60,008. Its nearest rivals, the AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX and AMD Ryzen 7 8745HX, sit within 0.2% of its average score, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX3D trails by 0.6%. The Intel Xeon Gold 6338T leads by 0.9%. The i9-14900F is positioned at the top of the desktop performance tier.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins 1 benchmark and ranks in the 84th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 33,989. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H, trailing by 0.3%, and the Intel Core i7-12800HX, leading by 0.3%. The Intel Xeon 6353P leads by 0.4%, and the AMD EPYC 4244P trails by 0.7%. The Ultra 5 338H sits in a competitive mobile mid-range band.

For a desktop workstation or high-end consumer build where multi-core Cinebench, PassMark multithread, and integer math matter, the i9-14900F is the stronger option. It leads the Ultra 5 338H by 142.2% in Cinebench R23 multicore and by 62% in PassMark multithread. For a mobile platform where low power (25 W TDP) and integrated graphics are required, the Ultra 5 338H is the only viable choice among these two, since the i9-14900F has no integrated graphics and a desktop socket.

Users who prioritize prime-number computation specifically would see the Ultra 5 338H win, but that single workload does not offset the i9-14900F's comprehensive lead in rendering, compression, encryption, and general multithreaded performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900F scores 39,551 versus 16,331 for the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H, a 142.2% advantage.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins?

A: Yes, the Ultra 5 338H wins PassMark find prime numbers, scoring 304 against 209 for the i9-14900F, a 31.2% edge.

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

A: The i9-14900F has 24 cores and 32 threads. The Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The i9-14900F supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 5 338H does not.

Q: What integrated graphics does each processor include?

A: The i9-14900F has no integrated graphics (N/A). The Ultra 5 338H includes Arc B370 integrated graphics.

Q: How do the two processors compare in PassMark single-thread performance?

A: The i9-14900F scores 4,506 and the Ultra 5 338H scores 4,180, giving the i9-14900F a 7.8% lead.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the i9-14900F comes in Cinebench R23 singlecore, where it scores 5,583 against 2,044, a 173.1% margin. PassMark integer math is nearly as decisive, with the i9-14900F at 177,066 versus 64,934, a 172.7% gap. These two results show the desktop chip's advantage in both lightly threaded and integer-heavy workloads.

Cinebench R23 multicore follows at 142.2% (39,551 versus 16,331). Data compression shows a 104% lead (564,207 versus 276,539), and random string sorting shows an 87% lead (63,728 versus 34,082). Cinebench R15 singlecore gives the i9-14900F an 84.3% lead (562 versus 305). Cinebench R20 multicore and singlecore show 62.6% and 62.7% leads, respectively. PassMark multithread gives a 62% lead (46,532 versus 28,717), and data encryption gives a 62.1% lead (34,644 versus 21,367).

Smaller margins still favor the i9-14900F. PassMark floating point math shows a 42.2% lead (119,550 versus 84,067), and PassMark extended instructions shows a 30% lead (31,084 versus 23,906). PassMark physics gives a 7.5% lead (2,899 versus 2,697), and PassMark single-thread gives a 7.8% lead (4,506 versus 4,180).

The Ultra 5 338H's only win, PassMark find prime numbers, is a 31.2% margin (304 versus 209). This is the sole instance where the mobile processor outperforms the desktop part, and it does not appear in any other recorded workload.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The i9-14900F uses 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Ultra 5 338H uses 12 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are 2.00 GHz and 1.90 GHz, respectively, and boost clocks are 5.80 GHz and 4.70 GHz. TDP is 65 W for the i9-14900F and 25 W for the Ultra 5 338H.

The i9-14900F uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 338H uses Intel BGA 2540. The architecture is Raptor Lake for the i9-14900F versus Panther Lake for the Ultra 5 338H. Process nodes are 10 nm and 3 nm, respectively. The i9-14900F has a die size of 257 mm²; the Ultra 5 338H has no recorded die size.

Cache configurations differ per core and in total. The i9-14900F has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Ultra 5 338H has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR4/DDR5 for the i9-14900F and LPDDR5X for the Ultra 5 338H. The Ultra 5 338H records a memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s; the i9-14900F has no bandwidth figure recorded.

ECC memory is supported on the i9-14900F but not on the Ultra 5 338H. PCIe lanes are Gen 5 with 16 lanes on the i9-14900F versus Gen 5 with 4 lanes on the Ultra 5 338H. Integrated graphics are absent on the i9-14900F and present as Arc B370 on the Ultra 5 338H. Market segments are Desktop and Mobile, respectively. The i9-14900F has a launch MSRP of $524; the Ultra 5 338H has no launch MSRP recorded. The production status is Active for both, with release dates of 2024-01-07 for the i9-14900F and 2026-01-04 for the Ultra 5 338H.