Intel Core i9-14900KS vs Intel Core i9-14901E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data presents a decisive picture: the Intel Core i9-14900KS wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core i9-14901E. The largest margins appear in memory-intensive and encryption workloads. In PassMark data compression, the 14900KS scores 803,368 against 288,777, a delta of 178.2%. Data encryption shows a 156.9% advantage (47,717 vs 18,571), and extended instructions land at 163.9% (45,524 vs 17,249). These are not marginal gains; the 14900KS roughly doubles or nearly doubles the 14901E in these specific tasks.

The compute-heavy workloads also skew heavily toward the 14900KS, though with smaller percentage gaps. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 50,995 versus 25,753, a 98% delta. The single-core R23 result is similarly lopsided: 7,199 against 3,635, again a 98% difference. Cinebench R20 and R15 follow the same pattern, with multi-core and single-core deltas of 98% and 98.1% respectively. PassMark multi-thread performance lands at 60,012 versus 30,298, a 98.1% delta, while integer math shows 212,644 against 112,736 (88.6%) and floating-point math 153,975 versus 81,089 (89.9%).

The closest contest appears in PassMark physics, where the 14900KS leads by only 11.2% (3,381 vs 3,041). PassMark single-thread also produces a relatively narrow gap: 4,815 versus 4,354, a 10.6% delta. Prime number finding shows a 29.1% advantage (244 vs 189), and random string sorting comes in at 129.4% (89,789 vs 39,138). The pattern is consistent: the 14900KS wins every test, but the margin varies widely depending on whether the workload scales with core count, single-thread frequency, or memory bandwidth.

In terms of average benchmark score, the 14900KS records 81,127, which places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The 14901E averages 37,911, sitting in the 86th percentile. That percentile gap is notable: both are high performers, but the 14900KS operates in a different performance tier. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon w5-3535X at 81,115 (0% delta) and AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX at 81,103 (0% delta), while the 14901E sits near the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 (37,904, 0% delta) and AMD Ryzen 7 9700X (37,943, -0.1% delta).

Where Each One Wins

The 14900KS wins across every recorded workload, but the analysis of where each chip excels requires looking at the magnitude of the wins. The 14900KS dominates in parallel workloads: Cinebench multi-core tests, PassMark multithread, integer math, floating-point math, and data compression all show deltas near or above 88%. These workloads scale with the 14900KS's higher core and thread counts, and the data reflects that scaling almost linearly in some cases.

The 14901E, while losing every head-to-head, shows relative strength in single-threaded and physics-based tasks. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4,354 is only 10.6% behind the 14900KS's 4,815, which is a much smaller gap than the 98% deltas seen in multi-core tests. Similarly, PassMark physics shows just an 11.2% difference. This suggests the 14901E's 5.60 GHz boost clock, while lower than the 14900KS's 6.20 GHz, still delivers competitive per-core performance. Prime number finding also shows a smaller gap (29.1%), indicating that workloads with limited thread scaling see a narrower performance spread.

For users running heavily threaded applications such as video rendering, code compilation, or scientific simulation, the 14900KS's 24 cores and 32 threads provide a substantial advantage. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 50,995 versus 25,753 is roughly double, which directly translates to roughly half the render time for multi-threaded tasks. For single-threaded workloads like legacy applications or lightly threaded games, the 14901E is more competitive, though still behind. The 14901E's 65W TDP also suggests it runs cooler and draws less power, though the database does not record thermal or power measurements for direct comparison.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental architecture: Raptor Lake, built on Intel's 10 nm process node, with a die size of 257 mm² and the same L1 cache of 80 KB per core, L2 cache of 2 MB per core, and L3 cache of 36 MB shared. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, include UHD Graphics 770 integrated graphics, and offer Gen 5 PCIe with 16 CPU lanes. ECC memory support is present on both.

The critical architectural divergence is in core configuration. The 14900KS features 24 cores and 32 threads, while the 14901E has 8 cores and 16 threads. This is a 16-core difference, which explains the near-doubling of multi-threaded benchmark scores. The 14900KS also has a higher base clock (3.20 GHz vs 2.80 GHz) and a higher boost clock (6.20 GHz vs 5.60 GHz). The 14900KS carries a 150W TDP compared to the 14901E's 65W TDP, reflecting the additional cores and higher clock speeds.

The multiplier is unlocked on the 14900KS but locked on the 14901E. This means the 14900KS can be overclocked, while the 14901E cannot. Both use the same Intel Socket 1700, so motherboard compatibility is identical. The production status for both is listed as Active, and both were released in 2024, with the 14900KS arriving on March 13 and the 14901E on June 30.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. Core count: 24 for the 14900KS versus 8 for the 14901E. Thread count: 32 versus 16. Base clock: 3.20 GHz versus 2.80 GHz. Boost clock: 6.20 GHz versus 5.60 GHz. TDP: 150W versus 65W. The 14900KS has an unlocked multiplier, while the 14901E is locked. The launch MSRP for the 14900KS is $689; the 14901E has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The part numbers differ (SRN7R for the 14900KS, Q49ESRNJH for the 14901E).

All other recorded specifications are identical: socket, architecture, codename, generation, process node, foundry, die size, cache hierarchy, memory support, memory bus, ECC support, PCIe configuration, integrated graphics, market segment, and production status. The identical cache structure is particularly interesting, as it means the 14900KS's advantage comes purely from core count and clock speed, not from a larger shared cache.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core i9-14900KS in multi-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 14900KS scores 50,995 against the 14901E's 25,753, a 98% delta. PassMark multithread shows 60,012 versus 30,298, also a 98.1% delta.

Q: Is the 14901E competitive in single-threaded performance?

A: The 14901E scores 4,354 in PassMark single-thread, which is 10.6% behind the 14900KS's 4,815. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap is larger: 3,635 versus 7,199, a 98% delta.

Q: What causes the 14900KS's large lead in data compression?

A: The PassMark data compression test shows 803,368 for the 14900KS versus 288,777 for the 14901E, a 178.2% delta. This workload likely scales with the 14900KS's 24 cores and 32 threads, as well as its higher 6.20 GHz boost clock.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory and PCIe configurations?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, and both offer Gen 5 PCIe with 16 CPU lanes. ECC memory support is present on both.

Q: Can the 14901E be overclocked?

A: No, the 14901E has a locked multiplier. The 14900KS has an unlocked multiplier and can be overclocked.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The 14900KS boosts to 6.20 GHz, while the 14901E boosts to 5.60 GHz. The base clocks are 3.20 GHz and 2.80 GHz, respectively.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear recommendation based on workload. For any application that benefits from multiple cores, the Intel Core i9-14900KS is decisively ahead. Its 24 cores and 32 threads deliver roughly double the multi-threaded performance of the 14901E across Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and PassMark multithread tests. The 98% deltas in these benchmarks mean the 14900KS completes multi-threaded tasks in approximately half the time. The 14900KS also wins every single-threaded test, though by a smaller margin in PassMark single-thread (10.6%) and physics (11.2%).

The Intel Core i9-14901E is not without merit. Its 65W TDP is less than half the 14900KS's 150W, which may translate to lower cooling requirements and power draw, though the database does not record thermal or power measurements. Its 86th percentile ranking still places it above most CPUs, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, both within 0.1% to 0.3% delta. For users with workloads that are lightly threaded or that prioritize power efficiency over raw throughput, the 14901E offers a viable alternative.

The 14900KS, however, occupies the 96th percentile and sits alongside the Intel Xeon w5-3535X and AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX in average benchmark score. Its 17-0 head-to-head record, combined with the 178.2% lead in data compression and 156.9% lead in encryption, confirms its position as the higher-performance processor in every measured category. The only recorded specification where the 14901E holds an advantage is TDP, and the only price-related field is the 14900KS's launch MSRP of $689, with no comparable figure for the 14901E. The verdict from the data is straightforward: the 14900KS is the faster processor, and the 14901E is the more power-efficient one.