Intel Core i9-14900F vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap between the Intel Core i9-14900F and the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H, with the desktop part winning 16 of 17 recorded tests. The single exception is passmark_find_prime_numbers, where the mobile chip leads by 34.9% (321 versus 209), a narrow category that favors its per-core prime calculation efficiency.

In multi-threaded workloads, the i9-14900F dominates across the Cinebench suite. The R15 multicore score is 3986 versus 2844, a 40.2% advantage. R20 multicore shows 16611 versus 11852, again 40.2% ahead. R23 multicore delivers 39551 against 28221, a 40.1% margin. These consistent deltas indicate the extra cores and threads translate directly into proportional rendering throughput.

Single-core results follow the same pattern, though the gap is slightly narrower. Cinebench R15 singlecore shows 562 versus 401 (40.1%), R20 singlecore 2344 versus 1673 (40.1%), and R23 singlecore 5583 versus 3984 (40.1%). The i9-14900F's 5.80 GHz boost clock compared to 5.00 GHz on the Ultra X7 368H explains much of this edge, though architecture differences also contribute.

PassMark integer math shows the largest disparity: 177066 versus 88083, a 101% advantage for the i9-14900F. This doubles the score, reflecting the 24-core versus 16-core configuration and the greater thread count (32 versus 16). Data compression similarly favors the desktop chip heavily: 564207 versus 312927, an 80.3% lead. Random string sorting follows at 63728 versus 38093, a 67.3% gap.

Floating-point math is closer but still clear: 119550 versus 105681, a 13.1% win for the i9-14900F. Extended instructions show a 21.1% advantage (31084 versus 25669). Data encryption lands at 34644 versus 25228, a 37.3% margin. The multithread PassMark score confirms the overall pattern: 46532 versus 32956, a 41.2% lead.

Single-thread PassMark shows 4506 versus 4005, a 12.5% gap. Physics scores are nearly identical: 2899 versus 2857, just 1.5% apart, making this the closest head-to-head result. The i9-14900F's average benchmark score of 60008 places it at the 92nd percentile among all CPUs, while the Ultra X7 368H averages 40518 at the 87th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The i9-14900F wins in every major productivity category: rendering, integer math, compression, encryption, sorting, and multithreaded workloads. Its 40%+ margins across Cinebench tests make it the clear choice for CPU-bound content creation, video encoding, and software compilation. The 101% lead in integer math targets workloads like code builds, spreadsheet calculations, and database operations that scale with core count and thread count.

The Ultra X7 368H wins only in prime number finding, a specific mathematical workload that rewards lower-latency single-thread execution patterns over raw throughput. Its 321 score versus 209 represents a 34.9% advantage, but this is an isolated result. The physics test nearly ties (2899 versus 2857, only 1.5% apart), suggesting that in physics simulation with moderate thread scaling, the two processors perform equivalently despite their architectural differences.

For mobile use, the Ultra X7 368H's 25 W TDP versus the i9-14900F's 65 W TDP indicates a power envelope suited to laptops, though the data does not include battery life or sustained performance measurements. The desktop chip's integrated graphics are listed as N/A, while the mobile chip includes Arc B390 graphics, which matters for systems without a discrete GPU.

Architecture Differences

The i9-14900F uses Intel's Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node, manufactured by Intel with a die size of 257 mm². It packs 24 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and boost clock of 5.80 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. Memory support covers DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configuration, with ECC memory enabled. The processor supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. It uses the Intel Socket 1700 and was released on 2024-01-07 with a launch MSRP of $524. The part number is SRN3W, and the multiplier is locked.

The Ultra X7 368H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, using Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node, also fabricated by Intel. It has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. Base clock is 2.00 GHz and boost is 5.00 GHz. The cache layout differs substantially: 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. Memory is limited to LPDDR5X in dual-channel with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, and ECC is not supported. The PCIe implementation is Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are Arc B390, a feature the i9-14900F lacks. It uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket, targets mobile systems, and was released on 2026-01-04. The part number is SA4R7Q9EJ, and the multiplier is locked. No launch MSRP is recorded.

The process node difference (10 nm versus 3 nm) explains the mobile chip's lower TDP (25 W versus 65 W) and smaller footprint, though the die size for the Ultra X7 368H is not recorded. The per-core L1 and L2 caches are larger on the Panther Lake part, but the total L3 cache is half (18 MB versus 36 MB). The i9-14900F's 24 cores with 32 threads versus 16 cores with 16 threads drives most benchmark differences.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core i9-14900F is the superior processor for multi-threaded desktop workloads. Its 40%+ lead in all Cinebench multicore tests, 101% advantage in integer math, and 80.3% edge in data compression make it the pick for rendering, compiling, and heavy productivity. The 92nd percentile ranking versus 87th for the Ultra X7 368H confirms the overall performance hierarchy.

The Ultra X7 368H serves a different purpose: mobile computing with a 25 W TDP. Its wins are limited to prime number finding (34.9% ahead) and a near-tie in physics. For laptop users who need CPU performance within a low power envelope, the data shows it offers competitive physics simulation and acceptable single-thread scores (4005 PassMark single-thread versus 4506). The integrated Arc B390 graphics provide display output without a discrete card, something the i9-14900F cannot do.

For desktop builders with access to Socket 1700 motherboards and DDR4/DDR5 memory, the i9-14900F is the clear choice based on every major benchmark except prime number finding. For portable systems requiring LPDDR5X memory and BGA 2540 mounting, the Ultra X7 368H is the only option in this comparison. The choice depends entirely on form factor and power requirements, not on raw performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900F has 24 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 multicore, the i9-14900F scores 39551 versus 28221 for the Ultra X7 368H, a 40.1% advantage. The R20 multicore test shows 16611 versus 11852, also 40.2% ahead.

Q: Is there any test where the Ultra X7 368H wins?

A: Yes, in passmark_find_prime_numbers, the Ultra X7 368H scores 321 versus 209 for the i9-14900F, a 34.9% lead. The physics test is nearly tied at 2899 versus 2857 (1.5% difference).

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The i9-14900F supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration with ECC support. The Ultra X7 368H supports only LPDDR5X memory in dual-channel with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC.

Q: Do these CPUs have integrated graphics?

A: The i9-14900F has no integrated graphics (N/A). The Ultra X7 368H includes Arc B390 integrated graphics.

Q: What are the TDP values?

A: The i9-14900F has a TDP of 65 W. The Ultra X7 368H has a TDP of 25 W.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i9-14900F | Intel Core Ultra X7 368H |

|----------------|----------------------|--------------------------|

| Cores | 24 | 16 |

| Threads | 32 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.00 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.80 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 36 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 4 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | Arc B390 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2024-01-07 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $524 | Not recorded |

| Part Number | SRN3W | SA4R7Q9EJ |

The die size is 257 mm² for the i9-14900F and not recorded for the Ultra X7 368H. Both processors have locked multipliers. The i9-14900F belongs to the Core 14th Gen series, while the Ultra X7 368H is part of the Core Ultra Series 3.