Intel Core i9-14900KS vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a dominant performance profile for the Intel Core i9-14900KS, which wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons. The most decisive victory comes in integer math, where the i9-14900KS scores 212,644 against the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus's 123,030, a 72.8% advantage. This is the largest gap in any test, reflecting the i9's substantial thread count advantage in a heavily parallel arithmetic workload.

Cinebench results are uniformly one-sided. Across all six Cinebench iterations (R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core), the i9-14900KS posts a 19.4% lead over the Ultra 5 250KF Plus. The multi-core scores illustrate the scale: Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 50,995 for the i9 against 42,718 for the Ultra 5, while the single-core R23 test shows 7,199 versus 6,030. The consistency of the 19.4% delta across both single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench tests indicates the advantage is structural rather than workload-specific.

Data compression also favors the i9-14900KS heavily. The PassMark data compression score of 803,368 versus 553,155 represents a 45.2% lead. Random string sorting shows a 33.6% edge (89,789 versus 67,209), and multithread performance lands at 60,012 versus 50,146, a 19.7% gap. Encryption favors the i9 by 15.6% (47,717 versus 41,292), while extended instructions and physics tests both show a 6.2% advantage for the i9 (45,524 versus 42,880, and 3,381 versus 3,183, respectively).

Single-thread performance, while still won by the i9-14900KS, is much closer. The PassMark single-thread score shows 4,815 versus 4,698, a 2.5% margin. This narrow gap is notable given the i9's higher boost clock of 6.20 GHz versus the Ultra 5's 5.30 GHz; the newer architecture of the Ultra 5 narrows the per-core deficit considerably.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins exactly two tests, both in PassMark sub-disciplines. Prime number computation shows a 46% advantage for the Ultra 5 (452 versus 244), which is the single largest percentage win for either processor. Floating-point math also goes to the Ultra 5, with 159,824 versus 153,975, a 3.7% edge.

Looking at overall averages, the i9-14900KS holds an average benchmark score of 81,127, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus averages 66,159, which sits in the 93rd percentile. The i9's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Xeon w5-3535X at 81,115 and the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX at 81,103, both with a 0% delta. The Ultra 5's closest competitor is the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at 66,855, which is 1% ahead of the 250KF Plus, while the AMD EPYC 4465P sits 1.1% ahead at 66,925.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900KS boosts to 6.20 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus reaches 5.30 GHz.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The i9-14900KS has 24 cores and 32 threads. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Ultra 5 250KF Plus specifies 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The i9-14900KS does not have a listed memory bandwidth figure in the database.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: The i9-14900KS supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports DDR5 only.

Q: What are the launch MSRP values?

A: The i9-14900KS has a launch MSRP of $689. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a launch MSRP of $184.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The i9-14900KS includes UHD Graphics 770. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics (N/A).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-14900KS is the clear choice for multi-threaded productivity workloads. Its 32 threads, 24 cores, and large 36 MB shared L3 cache deliver decisive wins in compression, encryption, integer math, and multithreaded rendering. The 19.4% Cinebench advantage across the board makes it the stronger option for CPU rendering, video encoding, and any task that scales across cores. The 72.8% lead in integer math indicates particular strength in computation-heavy scientific or financial simulations.

The i9-14900KS also wins every single-threaded test in the database, though by smaller margins. The 2.5% PassMark single-thread lead and the 19.4% Cinebench single-core lead both point to superior peak frequency behavior, likely driven by the 6.20 GHz boost clock. For users running lightly threaded applications like legacy software or certain game engines, the i9 retains an edge, but it is not overwhelming.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins in two specific areas: prime number finding and floating-point math. The 46% advantage in prime number calculation suggests a more efficient arithmetic pipeline for certain integer algorithms, possibly benefiting from the newer 3 nm process node and updated core design. The 3.7% floating-point win indicates the Ultra 5 handles FP-heavy workloads, such as certain physics simulations or audio processing, slightly better than the i9.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Ultra 5 is nearly competitive, trailing by only 2.5% in PassMark single-thread. Its 18 cores and 18 threads are still substantial for mainstream desktop use, and the 5.30 GHz boost clock is high for a 125 W TDP part. However, the overall average benchmark score of 66,159 versus 81,127 confirms that the i9-14900KS is the higher-performing processor in the majority of measured scenarios.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in almost every major specification category. The i9-14900KS uses 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses 18 cores and 18 threads, meaning the Ultra 5 has no hyper-threading or simultaneous multi-threading. Base clocks differ significantly: the i9 runs at 3.20 GHz, while the Ultra 5 runs at 4.20 GHz. Boost clocks also differ, with the i9 reaching 6.20 GHz versus 5.30 GHz for the Ultra 5.

Thermal design power is lower on the Ultra 5 at 125 W, compared to 150 W for the i9-14900KS. The sockets are not interchangeable: the i9 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 uses Intel Socket 1851. Memory support differs as well, with the i9 accepting both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 is DDR5-only. Both use dual-channel memory, but the Ultra 5 lists a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, a figure absent for the i9.

PCIe lane counts differ: the i9 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 5 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are present on the i9 (UHD Graphics 770) but absent on the Ultra 5 (N/A). Both support ECC memory and both have unlocked multipliers. Release dates differ by two years, with the i9 launched on 2024-03-13 and the Ultra 5 on 2026-03-10. Process nodes are different, with the i9 using 10 nm and the Ultra 5 using 3 nm, and the foundries differ (Intel versus TSMC).

The cache hierarchy is different in both size and organization. The i9 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 has more L1 and L2 per core, but less shared L3 overall.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The Intel Core i9-14900KS is built on Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-R, and sits in the Core 14th Gen series. It uses a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel, with a die size of 257 mm². The Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, in the Core Ultra Series 2, fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm node, with a die size of 243 mm². The Ultra 5 also lists a transistor count of 17,800 million, a figure the i9 does not provide.

The core organization differs beyond the raw counts. The i9-14900KS combines 8 performance cores with 16 efficiency cores for a total of 24 cores, and it supports 32 threads. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses 18 cores and 18 threads, indicating a design without simultaneous multi-threading. The Arrow Lake Refresh design appears to favor higher base clocks (4.20 GHz versus 3.20 GHz) and a more efficient process node, while the Raptor Lake design relies on a higher boost clock (6.20 GHz versus 5.30 GHz) and more threads.

Cache allocation reflects the different design philosophies. The i9 gives each core 80 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, but pools 36 MB in L3. The Ultra 5 gives each core 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2, but only 30 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 on the Ultra 5 likely contributes to its wins in prime number finding and floating-point math, where per-core cache locality matters. The larger shared L3 on the i9 benefits multi-threaded workloads that share data across cores.

Both processors use the same x86 instruction set foundation, but the newer 3 nm TSMC node on the Ultra 5 provides a transistor density advantage, evidenced by 17,800 million transistors in a slightly smaller die (243 mm² versus 257 mm²). The i9's 10 nm Intel node packs fewer transistors into a larger die. The Ultra 5's higher base clock of 4.20 GHz suggests the Arrow Lake Refresh design achieves better power efficiency at moderate frequencies, while the i9's 6.20 GHz boost clock shows the Raptor Lake design can reach higher absolute frequencies on fewer, larger cores.

The integrated graphics difference is also architectural. The i9 includes UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 5 has no integrated graphics at all, forcing reliance on a discrete GPU. The Ultra 5's 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (versus 16 on the i9) suggest a platform designed for more expansion or GPU bandwidth, while the i9's 16 lanes are more conservative. The socket change from 1700 to 1851 confirms a new platform generation, and the DDR5-only memory controller on the Ultra 5 aligns with modern memory standards, whereas the i9 retains legacy DDR4 compatibility.