Intel Core i9-14900T vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is decisively one-sided, but not in the way the core counts might suggest. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 wins 14 of the 17 recorded benchmark comparisons, while the Intel Core i9-14900T manages just 3 victories. The most significant margin belongs to the i9-14900T in Passmark integer math, where it scores 138149 against 91187, a 51.5% advantage. That is a massive gap, and it reflects the i9's ability to throw 32 threads at workloads that scale with integer operations. The other two i9 wins are much narrower: data compression at 436066 versus 400942 (8.8% ahead) and random string sorting at 49484 versus 49140 (0.7% ahead).

The Ultra 5 245's wins are broader and often steeper. In every Cinebench test, it leads by a consistent 6.4% to 6.5%. That includes R23 multi-core at 32924 versus 30803, and single-core at 4648 versus 4348. The pattern holds across R15, R20, and R23, which suggests a fundamental efficiency advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The Ultra 5 also dominates in Passmark extended instructions, scoring 33304 versus 23660, a 29% lead. Its biggest single margin is in find prime numbers, where it scores 365 against the i9's 164, a 55.1% gap. Floating point math also favors the Ultra 5 heavily, at 120548 versus 92699, a 23.1% lead.

The remaining Ultra 5 wins are more moderate. Data encryption comes in at 30236 versus 27062, a 10.5% edge. Physics simulation shows 2569 versus 2245, a 12.6% lead. Passmark multithread scores 38706 versus 36239, a 6.4% gap, and single-thread scores 4394 versus 4016, an 8.6% gap. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the i9-14900T sits at 51015, while the Ultra 5 245 sits at 48995. Both CPUs land at the 90th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The i9's nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T at 51310, a 0.6% gap, while the Ultra 5 245's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G at 49196, a 0.4% gap.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design generations. The i9-14900T is Raptor Lake-R, built on Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 257 mm². It features 24 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 1.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. Its thermal design point is 35 W, which is notably low for a 24-core part. The Ultra 5 245 is Arrow Lake-S, manufactured by TSMC on a 3 nm process with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. It has 14 cores and 14 threads, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, at a 65 W TDP.

The cache layouts diverge sharply. The i9-14900T has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 5 245 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and only 24 MB of shared L3. The L3 difference is substantial, and it explains why the i9 holds its own in certain compression and sorting tasks where large working sets benefit from more shared cache. However, the Ultra 5's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches help with latency-sensitive single-threaded workloads.

The platforms are incompatible. The i9-14900T uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 245 uses Intel Socket 1851. Memory support differs as well: the i9 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 supports DDR5 only. Both are dual-channel. The Ultra 5 has a rated memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, which is not a figure listed for the i9. PCIe lanes also differ: the i9 provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 5 provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are different too: the i9 has UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 5 has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Both support ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The release dates are a year apart. The i9-14900T launched on 2024-01-07, and the Ultra 5 245 launched on 2025-01-06. Both are currently active production parts. The launch MSRP for the i9-14900T is $549, and for the Ultra 5 245 it is $270.

Where Each One Wins

The i9-14900T wins where thread count and cache capacity matter more than per-core efficiency. Its 51.5% lead in integer math makes it the obvious pick for heavily parallel integer workloads, such as code compilation, rendering pipelines, or scientific simulations that are not vectorized. Its 8.8% lead in data compression and 0.7% lead in random string sorting suggest it holds a slight edge in data-heavy tasks that benefit from the 36 MB L3 cache. If a workload is built around many threads with irregular memory access, the i9's 32 threads give it a structural advantage.

The Ultra 5 245 wins almost everywhere else. Its 55.1% lead in prime number finding and 23.1% lead in floating point math indicate strong scalar and vector performance per core. The 29% lead in extended instructions points to better SIMD and newer instruction set efficiency. The 10.5% lead in encryption, 12.6% lead in physics, and 8.6% lead in single-thread performance make it the better choice for everyday desktop responsiveness, gaming, and lightly threaded productivity apps. Even in multithreaded Cinebench, it wins by 6.4% despite having 14 cores versus 24, which means its per-core efficiency more than compensates for the core deficit.

For a practical build, the split is clear. The i9-14900T suits a workstation that runs long, parallel integer jobs and needs the low 35 W TDP for constrained cooling or power budgets. The Ultra 5 245 suits a general-purpose or gaming PC where single-thread speed and modern instruction support matter more, and where the higher 65 W TDP is acceptable. The i9 wins 3 benchmark categories, the Ultra 5 wins 14, and the data does not suggest any other conclusion.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The i9-14900T has 24 cores and 32 threads. The Ultra 5 245 has 14 cores and 14 threads.

Q: Which CPU is faster in single-threaded performance?

A: The Ultra 5 245 wins all single-thread tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 4648 versus 4348 for the i9-14900T, a 6.5% lead. In Passmark single-thread, it scores 4394 versus 4016, an 8.6% lead.

Q: Which CPU has the larger L3 cache?

A: The i9-14900T has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ultra 5 245 has 24 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the i9-14900T and the Ultra 5 245 support ECC memory.

Q: Which CPU supports DDR4 memory?

A: The i9-14900T supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The Ultra 5 245 supports DDR5 only.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The i9-14900T has a 35 W TDP, while the Ultra 5 245 has a 65 W TDP.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 as the better all-around processor, but not by a knockout. It wins 14 of 17 comparisons, including every Cinebench test and most Passmark workloads. Its per-core efficiency is remarkable: it beats a 24-core, 32-thread part in multi-threaded Cinebench by 6.4% while using fewer cores. The single-thread leads of 6.5% in Cinebench and 8.6% in Passmark make it the better choice for typical desktop use, gaming, and applications that are not fully parallel.

The i9-14900T is not obsolete, though. Its 51.5% lead in integer math is the single largest margin in the entire comparison, and its 8.8% lead in data compression shows that high core counts still matter for specific workloads. The 36 MB L3 cache is a real advantage for data-heavy tasks. If a build is dedicated to integer-heavy parallel processing, the i9-14900T has a clear reason to exist. The 35 W TDP also makes it an option for low-power systems that still need many threads.

For most builders, the Ultra 5 245 is the practical recommendation. It wins the majority of tests, has a lower launch MSRP ($270 versus $549), and offers newer architecture, a smaller process node, and higher memory bandwidth. The i9-14900T is a specialist part: pick it only if your workload is dominated by integer math or data compression, and if you can accept the older platform and higher price. Otherwise, the benchmark results consistently favor the Ultra 5 245.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core i9-14900T | Intel Core Ultra 5 245 |

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

| Cores | 24 | 14 |

| Threads | 32 | 14 |

| Base Clock | 1.10 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.50 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Arrow Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 257 mm² | 243 mm² |

| 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 |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Launch MSRP | $549 | $270 |

| Release Date | 2024-01-07 | 2025-01-06 |