Intel Core i9-14900F vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison between the Intel Core i9-14900F and Intel Core Ultra X9 378H shows a decisive performance advantage for the desktop part. Across the 17 recorded benchmark comparisons, the i9-14900F wins 14 tests, while the Ultra X9 378H claims 3 wins. The margin is not uniform, however, with the largest gaps appearing in heavily multithreaded and integer-heavy workloads.

Starting with Cinebench, the i9-14900F posts a consistent 21.5% lead across all six recorded tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the scores are 3986 versus 3281, a 21.5% difference. Single-core R15 shows 562 versus 462, also a 21.6% gap. The R20 multi-core result is 16611 against 13672, and R20 single-core is 2344 versus 1929, both at 21.5%. R23 multi-core delivers 39551 versus 32553, with R23 single-core at 5583 versus 4595. The uniformity of these deltas suggests the i9-14900F holds a consistent architectural throughput advantage across the Cinebench suite.

The PassMark integer math test shows the single largest victory for the i9-14900F. Its score of 177066 dwarfs the Ultra X9 378H's 92603, a 91.2% delta. This test heavily favors the 24-core, 32-thread desktop processor. Data compression follows closely, with 564207 versus 386591, a 45.9% gap. Random string sorting shows 63728 versus 44648, a 42.7% lead. Data encryption records 34644 versus 29840, a 16.1% advantage. Floating point math demonstrates a smaller but clear edge at 119550 versus 114500, a 4.4% delta. PassMark multi-thread returns 46532 versus 38298, a 21.5% gap mirroring the Cinebench results. Single-thread PassMark shows a narrow 4506 versus 4453, a 1.2% lead for the i9-14900F.

The Ultra X9 378H claims its wins in three specific tests. PassMark extended instructions shows 31315 versus 31084, a 0.7% advantage. PassMark find prime numbers records 357 versus 209, a 41.5% lead for the mobile chip. PassMark physics delivers 3404 versus 2899, a 14.8% advantage. These three wins indicate specialized strengths in instruction-level efficiency and prime-number computation, but they do not offset the broader performance deficit. The overall average benchmark score for the i9-14900F is 60008, compared to 47468 for the Ultra X9 378H, placing the desktop part at the 92nd percentile versus the 89th percentile for the mobile chip.

The Verdict

The data points to two processors serving different primary roles. The Intel Core i9-14900F is the stronger processor for compute-heavy workloads that scale with core count and threads. Its 21.5% lead in Cinebench multi-core tests and 91.2% advantage in integer math confirm that users running rendering, compilation, or data processing will see substantial gains. The 42.7% lead in random string sorting and 45.9% lead in data compression further support this profile.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H claims the physics test with a 14.8% margin and the prime number test with a 41.5% margin. Its extended instructions score is effectively tied with the desktop part at 0.7% apart. These results suggest the mobile processor carries specific optimizations for certain mathematical operations, but the overall workload coverage favors the i9-14900F. Users who need maximum throughput across a broad mix of applications should select the i9-14900F. Users constrained to a mobile platform with lighter computational demands would find the Ultra X9 378H acceptable, but the recorded data shows no scenario where it outperforms the desktop chip by more than a small margin outside the prime number and physics tests.

In terms of market positioning, the i9-14900F sits at the 92nd percentile among all CPUs, while the Ultra X9 378H sits at the 89th percentile. The nearest rival data for the i9-14900F shows it within 0.9% of the AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX and Ryzen 7 8745HX, with a 0.6% lead over the Ryzen 9 7945HX3D. The Ultra X9 378H is within 0.6% of the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945, and holds a 0.3% lead over the Intel Core i7-13700KF. These comparisons place both chips in competitive territory relative to their peers.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design generations and target different platforms. The Intel Core i9-14900F uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-R, and belongs to the Core 14th Gen series. It is manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. The die size is 257 mm². The Ultra X9 378H uses the Panther Lake codename, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, and carries the Panther Lake-H generation label. It is built on a 3 nm process, also at Intel's foundry, with no die size recorded in the database.

Core and thread counts differ substantially. The i9-14900F provides 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Ultra X9 378H provides 16 cores and 16 threads. The desktop part offers 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, with 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The mobile part offers 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, with 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core cache on the Ultra X9 378H does not compensate for the reduced core count.

Memory support diverges completely. The i9-14900F supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, with ECC memory support enabled. The Ultra X9 378H supports only LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s and no ECC support. The PCIe configuration also differs: the i9-14900F offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra X9 378H offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes. The integrated graphics differ as well, with the i9-14900F having no integrated GPU (N/A) and the Ultra X9 378H featuring the Arc B390.

The socket and form factor separate the platforms. The i9-14900F uses Intel Socket 1700 and targets the desktop market segment. The Ultra X9 378H uses Intel BGA 2540 and targets the mobile segment. The base clock for both is 2.00 GHz, but the boost clock differs: 5.80 GHz for the i9-14900F versus 5.00 GHz for the Ultra X9 378H. The thermal design power is 65 watts for the desktop chip and 25 watts for the mobile chip. The release dates differ, with the i9-14900F released in January 2024 and the Ultra X9 378H in April 2026. The i9-14900F carries a launch MSRP of $524; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra X9 378H. Both processors have locked multipliers and neither is unlocked.

FAQ

Q: Which processor scores higher in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900F scores 39551, which is 21.5% higher than the Ultra X9 378H's 32553.

Q: Does the Ultra X9 378H win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins three tests: PassMark extended instructions by 0.7%, PassMark find prime numbers by 41.5%, and PassMark physics by 14.8%.

Q: What is the single largest performance gap between the two?

A: The PassMark integer math test shows the largest gap, with the i9-14900F scoring 177066 versus 92603 for the Ultra X9 378H, a 91.2% difference.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The i9-14900F has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The i9-14900F supports ECC memory. The Ultra X9 378H does not.

Q: How does the single-thread performance compare?

A: In PassMark single-thread, the i9-14900F scores 4506 versus 4453 for the Ultra X9 378H, a 1.2% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i9-14900F scores 5583 versus 4595, a 21.5% lead.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-14900F wins across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both multi-core and single-core variants, with deltas of 21.5% to 21.6%. It also wins PassMark data compression, data encryption, floating point math, integer math, multi-thread, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. The largest wins for the i9-14900F are in integer math at 91.2%, data compression at 45.9%, and random string sorting at 42.7%. These results indicate strength in workloads requiring broad parallel execution, high memory throughput, and heavy integer arithmetic.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins PassMark extended instructions by 0.7%, PassMark find prime numbers by 41.5%, and PassMark physics by 14.8%. These wins point to specific mathematical efficiency in prime-number generation and physics calculations, but the overall pattern shows the mobile chip cannot match the desktop part in general-purpose throughput. The physics win of 14.8% is notable, as it suggests the Ultra X9 378H handles certain simulation workloads better despite the lower core count. The prime number test advantage of 41.5% is the largest relative win for the mobile part, indicating a specialized instruction path that the i9-14900F lacks.

For users running mixed workloads, the i9-14900F covers a wider range of tasks with higher scores. The Ultra X9 378H offers advantages only in the three recorded tests where it wins, which represent a narrow slice of the benchmark suite. The data does not show any workload category where the mobile chip matches the desktop part's overall performance, aside from the specific tests noted.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in every major specification category except for base clock and manufacturer. Both are Intel parts with a 2.00 GHz base clock, but the i9-14900F boosts to 5.80 GHz while the Ultra X9 378H boosts to 5.00 GHz. The i9-14900F has 24 cores and 32 threads; the Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The desktop part uses a 65 watt TDP, while the mobile part uses 25 watts.

The cache hierarchy differs entirely. The i9-14900F has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Ultra X9 378H has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. Memory support shows DDR4/DDR5 for the desktop chip versus LPDDR5X only for the mobile chip. ECC is available on the i9-14900F but not on the Ultra X9 378H. The memory bus is dual-channel for both, but the memory bandwidth field is only recorded for the Ultra X9 378H at 153.6 GB/s.

PCIe connectivity differs with 16 Gen 5 lanes on the i9-14900F versus 4 Gen 5 lanes on the Ultra X9 378H. The i9-14900F has no integrated graphics, while the Ultra X9 378H includes the Arc B390. The socket is Intel Socket 1700 for the desktop part and Intel BGA 2540 for the mobile part. The process node is 10 nm for the i9-14900F and 3 nm for the Ultra X9 378H. Die size is recorded only for the i9-14900F at 257 mm². The release dates are January 2024 and April 2026 respectively. The i9-14900F has a launch MSRP of $524; the Ultra X9 378H has none recorded. Both have locked multipliers. The market segment is Desktop for the i9-14900F and Mobile for the Ultra X9 378H.