Intel Core i9-14900KS vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive contest. The Intel Core i9-14900KS wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, with the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H taking a single victory. The scale of the i9-14900KS advantage varies dramatically by workload, from a narrow lead in physics simulation to a staggering 246.1% margin in single-core rendering.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the i9-14900KS demonstrates its dominance. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i9-14900KS scores 50,995 against the Ultra X7 358H's 18,747, a 172% delta. The single-core R23 result is even more lopsided: 7,199 versus 2,080, a 246.1% advantage. This pattern holds across older Cinebench versions. R20 multi-core shows 21,417 versus 12,011, a 78.3% lead, while R20 single-core repeats the exact same 78.3% delta with scores of 3,023 and 1,695. Even in R15, the i9-14900KS leads multi-core by 69.8% (5,140 versus 3,027) and single-core by 140.5% (725 versus 301.5).

The PassMark suite tells a similar story, though with notable variation. The largest single margin in any test is the Cinebench R23 single-core result, but PassMark integer math comes close. Here the i9-14900KS scores 212,644 against 83,147, a 155.7% delta. Data compression shows a 141.6% lead (803,368 versus 332,508), and random string sorting a 122.5% edge (89,789 versus 40,357). Data encryption favors the i9-14900KS by 83.2% (47,717 versus 26,046), while extended instructions show a 66.9% advantage (45,524 versus 27,274). Floating point math is less extreme but still substantial: 153,975 versus 103,842, a 48.3% delta. The PassMark multithread test shows a 77.5% lead (60,012 versus 33,802), and single-thread performance is 16.8% higher (4,815 versus 4,124).

The narrowest i9-14900KS victory comes in PassMark physics, where it scores 3,381 against 3,021, a modest 11.9% margin. This suggests the Ultra X7 358H's architecture is comparatively efficient in physics workloads, even if it cannot overcome the i9-14900KS's overall superiority.

The single Ultra X7 358H win is in PassMark find prime numbers: 337 versus 244, a 27.6% advantage in favor of the mobile chip. This is a curious result, as prime number finding typically favors higher clock speeds and integer throughput, both of which should benefit the i9-14900KS. The data indicates the Panther Lake architecture handles this specific workload pattern more efficiently despite its lower core count and clock speeds.

The Verdict

The data clearly positions the Intel Core i9-14900KS as the superior processor for almost every measured task. Its average benchmark score of 81,127 places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra X7 358H averages 40,967, sitting in the 87th percentile. The i9-14900KS's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon w5-3535X (average score 81,115, 0% delta) and AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX (81,103, 0% delta), indicating it competes at the workstation and high-end desktop level. The Ultra X7 358H, by contrast, sits alongside the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (41,208, -0.6% delta) and Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (41,215, -0.6% delta), firmly in the mainstream mobile segment.

For desktop users seeking maximum performance in rendering, compression, encryption, and math-heavy workloads, the i9-14900KS is the clear choice based on the recorded data. Its 172% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 155.7% lead in integer math are decisive. The Ultra X7 358H, however, serves a different purpose entirely. Its 25 W TDP and mobile socket make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where the i9-14900KS's 150 W TDP would be impractical. The data shows the Ultra X7 358H wins only in prime number finding, which is a narrow niche. For anyone prioritizing battery life and portability over raw performance, the Ultra X7 358H's results are respectable within its power envelope, but the i9-14900KS outperforms it in every other measured category.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different Intel design philosophies. The i9-14900KS uses the Raptor Lake architecture (specifically Raptor Lake-R) on a 10 nm process node, while the Ultra X7 358H employs the Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm node. This process difference explains part of the power disparity: the i9-14900KS has a 150 W TDP, while the Ultra X7 358H draws only 25 W.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The i9-14900KS offers 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The absence of hyperthreading on the Ultra X7 358H is notable, as it means each physical core handles exactly one thread. The i9-14900KS's 32 threads from 24 cores indicate a hybrid arrangement with performance and efficiency cores, typical of Raptor Lake designs.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The i9-14900KS provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra X7 358H offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, but only 18 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 on the Ultra X7 358H suggest a different cache strategy, potentially optimizing for reduced latency per core rather than aggregate cache volume. This could explain the Ultra X7 358H's advantage in prime number finding, where per-core cache efficiency matters more than total cache size.

Memory support also diverges. The i9-14900KS supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, with ECC memory capability. The Ultra X7 358H supports only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. It does not support ECC memory. The i9-14900KS's PCIe implementation offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra X7 358H provides Gen 5 with just 4 lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: UHD Graphics 770 on the i9-14900KS versus Arc B390 on the Ultra X7 358H.

The socket types reflect their market segments: the i9-14900KS uses Intel Socket 1700 for desktop motherboards, while the Ultra X7 358H uses Intel BGA 2540, a soldered mobile package. The i9-14900KS has an unlocked multiplier, the Ultra X7 358H does not. Release dates are far apart, with the i9-14900KS launching on 2024-03-13 and the Ultra X7 358H on 2026-01-04.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear contrasts across nearly every field. Core count: 24 versus 16. Thread count: 32 versus 16. Base clock: 3.20 GHz versus 1.90 GHz. Boost clock: 6.20 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. TDP: 150 W versus 25 W. Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm.

Cache specifications differ in both per-core and shared amounts. L1 per core: 80 KB versus 192 KB. L2 per core: 2 MB versus 3 MB. L3 shared: 36 MB versus 18 MB. Memory support: DDR4/DDR5 versus LPDDR5X only. Memory bandwidth: not recorded for the i9-14900KS, versus 153.6 GB/s for the Ultra X7 358H. ECC support: true versus false. PCIe lanes: 16 versus 4, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 770 versus Arc B390. Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2540. Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile. Multiplier unlocked: true versus false.

The i9-14900KS has a recorded launch MSRP of $689. The Ultra X7 358H has no recorded launch MSRP. Die size is recorded for the i9-14900KS at 257 mm², but not for the Ultra X7 358H. The part numbers also differ: SRN7R for the i9-14900KS, SA4RAQ9ET for the Ultra X7 358H. Both are listed as Active in production status.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900KS reaches 6.20 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H tops out at 4.80 GHz.

Q: How much larger is the i9-14900KS's L3 cache?

A: The i9-14900KS has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, exactly double the Ultra X7 358H's 18 MB.

Q: Does the Ultra X7 358H support ECC memory?

A: No, ECC memory is not supported on the Ultra X7 358H, while the i9-14900KS does support it.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two chips?

A: The i9-14900KS has a 150 W TDP, six times higher than the Ultra X7 358H's 25 W TDP.

Q: Which processor wins in PassMark find prime numbers?

A: The Ultra X7 358H wins this specific test, scoring 337 versus the i9-14900KS's 244, a 27.6% advantage.

Q: What are the release dates for both processors?

A: The i9-14900KS was released on 2024-03-13, and the Ultra X7 358H on 2026-01-04.

Where Each One Wins

The i9-14900KS dominates in 16 of 17 recorded benchmarks. Its largest margins come in Cinebench R23 single-core (246.1% ahead), Cinebench R23 multi-core (172% ahead), and PassMark integer math (155.7% ahead). These results indicate exceptional performance in rendering, productivity, and general computation. The data shows the i9-14900KS excels in data compression (141.6% lead), random string sorting (122.5% lead), and data encryption (83.2% lead). Its physics score is only 11.9% higher, but it still wins. For desktop users running multi-threaded workloads like video encoding, 3D rendering, or software compilation, the i9-14900KS delivers more than double the performance in several key tests.

The Ultra X7 358H wins only in PassMark find prime numbers, scoring 337 against 244. This 27.6% advantage suggests a specific architectural efficiency in integer-heavy, cache-sensitive operations. The chip's larger per-core L1 (192 KB versus 80 KB) and L2 (3 MB versus 2 MB) caches likely contribute to this result. The Ultra X7 358H also demonstrates respectable single-thread performance relative to its power budget, trailing the i9-14900KS by only 16.8% in PassMark single-thread despite a 1.4 GHz lower boost clock and a 125 W TDP disadvantage.

The use-case split is clear from the data. The i9-14900KS is for stationary systems where power draw and heat are secondary concerns, and where maximum throughput across all core types is required. The Ultra X7 358H is for mobile platforms where the 25 W TDP enables compact cooling solutions, and where the specific prime number finding workload is prioritized. The 3 nm process node gives the Ultra X7 358H a transistor-density advantage, but the i9-14900KS's higher clocks, more cores, and larger shared cache produce superior results in almost every measured category. The data does not indicate any workload besides prime number finding where the Ultra X7 358H outperforms the i9-14900KS.