Intel Core i9-14900HX vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF Comparison

The Intel Core i9-14900HX and Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF represent two distinct approaches to Intel’s 2024 lineup: one is a high-core-count mobile part built on a mature process, the other a desktop chip on a current-generation node with a radically different core topology. The benchmark data reveals a split personality: the i9 wins on integer-heavy and compression workloads, while the Ultra 5 dominates single-threaded, floating-point, and encryption tests. Both parts land at the 91st percentile among all CPUs, yet they achieve that standing through very different strengths.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result in the entire dataset is PassMark integer math, where the i9-14900HX scores 157375 against the Ultra 5’s 98854 — a 59.2% advantage. That gap is a direct consequence of the i9’s 24 cores and 32 threads, which let it plow through parallel integer workloads. The i9 also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 23.9% (4574 vs 3693), and leads PassMark data compression by 17.4% (539965 vs 460123). These are not marginal victories; they indicate a clear edge for the mobile chip in heavily threaded, integer-centric tasks.

However, the Ultra 5 245KF strikes back with authority in single-core performance. The Cinebench R23 single-core delta is stunning: 5173 vs 2181.5, a 57.8% lead for the desktop part. The R15 single-core test shows a similar 40.4% gap (521 vs 310.5). This is not a minor refinement — the Ultra 5’s Arrow Lake architecture delivers roughly double the single-threaded throughput in the newest Cinebench revision. PassMark single-thread confirms the trend, with the Ultra 5 ahead by 11.5% (4715 vs 4175).

Multi-core Cinebench results are mixed. The Ultra 5 wins R23 multi-core by 18% (36647 vs 30055), yet loses R20 multi-core by a slim 1.5% (15391 vs 15616). The R15 multi-core result heavily favors the i9, but the R23 result flips the script. This inconsistency suggests the Ultra 5’s newer architecture scales better under sustained AVX-heavy loads, while the i9’s raw core count wins in shorter or less optimized bursts.

PassMark sub-tests further delineate the split. The Ultra 5 wins extended instructions by 17.6% (37912 vs 31247), floating-point math by 14.7% (131546 vs 112273), prime number finding by 53.6% (416 vs 193), and physics by 12% (2998 vs 2638). The i9 counters with wins in random string sorting (10.2%, 60861 vs 55206) and multithread (1.5%, 43778 vs 43110). Data encryption goes to the Ultra 5 by a narrow 2.3% (33381 vs 32619). Overall, the Ultra 5 takes 10 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, but the i9’s wins are often larger where they occur.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF scores 5173, which is 57.8% higher than the Intel Core i9-14900HX’s 2181.5.

Q: How large is the multi-core advantage for the i9-14900HX in PassMark integer math?

A: The i9 scores 157375 versus the Ultra 5’s 98854, a 59.2% lead — the largest delta in the head-to-head dataset.

Q: Do both processors share the same overall performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the i9-14900HX and the Ultra 5 245KF are at the 91st percentile among all CPUs, though their average benchmark scores differ slightly (56004 vs 55093).

Q: Which chip wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Ultra 5 245KF wins 10 of the 17 bench comparisons, while the i9-14900HX wins 7.

Q: What is the single-thread PassMark score difference?

A: The Ultra 5 leads with 4715 versus the i9’s 4175, an 11.5% advantage.

Q: Is the i9-14900HX ahead in any Cinebench multi-core test?

A: Yes, the i9 wins R15 multi-core by 23.9% (4574 vs 3693) and R20 multi-core by 1.5% (15616 vs 15391), but loses R23 multi-core by 18% (30055 vs 36647).

Architecture Differences

The i9-14900HX is built on Raptor Lake-HX, a 10 nm process from Intel’s own foundry, and uses a hybrid core layout that yields 24 cores and 32 threads. Its L3 cache is a shared 36 MB, with 2 MB L2 per core and 80 KB L1 per core. The Ultra 5 245KF, by contrast, is Arrow Lake-S on a 3 nm node fabricated by TSMC, with 14 cores and 14 threads — no hyper-threading. It has a larger L1 at 192 KB per core and 3 MB L2 per core, but a smaller shared L3 at 24 MB. The transistor count tells the story of density: the Ultra 5 packs 17,800 million transistors into a 243 mm² die, while the i9’s die size is 257 mm² with no transistor figure listed.

The integrated graphics differ completely. The i9 includes UHD Graphics 770, whereas the Ultra 5 has no integrated graphics (N/A). Memory support diverges as well: the i9 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 is DDR5-only. The Ultra 5 also lists a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, a figure absent for the i9. PCIe lanes favor the desktop part: the Ultra 5 has Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), versus the i9’s 16 lanes. ECC memory is supported on the i9 but not on the Ultra 5. The Ultra 5’s base clock is 4.20 GHz and boost is 5.20 GHz, while the i9 runs at 2.20 GHz base and 5.80 GHz boost — a lower floor but a higher ceiling.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core i9-14900HX | Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF |

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

| Cores | 24 | 14 |

| Threads | 32 | 14 |

| Base Clock | 2.20 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.80 GHz | 5.20 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1964 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

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

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 36 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | N/A |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2024-01-07 | 2024-10-23 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $294 |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to two different buyers. The i9-14900HX is a mobile processor with a 55 W TDP, designed for laptops yet outperforming a desktop chip in several threaded workloads. Its 59.2% lead in integer math and 23.9% lead in R15 multi-core make it the choice for tasks that rely on raw parallel integer execution, such as compilation or data processing. The Ultra 5 245KF, with a 125 W TDP and no integrated graphics, is a desktop part that sacrifices core count for per-core efficiency. Its 57.8% advantage in R23 single-core and 53.6% lead in prime number finding indicate superior single-threaded and algorithmically simple performance.

The average benchmark scores are close — 56004 for the i9 versus 55093 for the Ultra 5 — but the distribution of wins is not. The Ultra 5 wins more total benchmarks (10 vs 7), yet the i9’s biggest win is far larger than any of the Ultra 5’s. If the workload is heavily integer-threaded, the i9 is the clear pick. If the workload is single-threaded, floating-point, or encryption-heavy, the Ultra 5 dominates. The i9’s lower base clock and higher boost clock suggest a part that ramps aggressively under load, while the Ultra 5’s higher base clock indicates sustained frequency at a higher power envelope.

Where Each One Wins

The i9-14900HX wins in scenarios involving data compression, integer math, random string sorting, and the older Cinebench R15/R20 multi-core tests. Its 24-core, 32-thread configuration is ideal for parallel integer workloads, and its 36 MB L3 cache likely helps with compression-style data access patterns. The mobile form factor with a 55 W TDP makes it suitable for high-performance laptops where power draw is constrained but multi-core throughput is paramount.

The Ultra 5 245KF wins in single-core, floating-point, encryption, and extended instruction workloads. Its 3 nm process and Arrow Lake architecture deliver a 57.8% single-core lead in R23, which translates to snappier everyday responsiveness and better performance in lightly threaded applications. The 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth and larger L1/L2 caches per core support its floating-point and extended instruction advantages. The desktop socket and 125 W TDP allow sustained high-frequency operation, and the lack of integrated graphics frees die area for compute. The 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes also give it more headroom for expansion cards, though both parts support Gen 5. For users prioritizing single-threaded speed, encryption, or math-heavy floating-point tasks, the Ultra 5 is the data-backed choice.