Intel Core i9-14901E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225F Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E boosts to 5.60 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F tops out at 4.90 GHz. The i9 also starts from a lower base clock of 2.80 GHz versus 3.30 GHz for the Ultra 5.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-threaded Cinebench workloads?

A: The results are mixed. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i9-14901E wins with a score of 25753 against 16467 for the Ultra 5, a 56.4% advantage. However, the Ultra 5 wins Cinebench R15 multi-core (2660 vs 2595) and Cinebench R20 multi-core (11059 vs 10816), albeit by narrow margins of 2.4% and 2.2% respectively.

Q: Which chip has more cores and threads?

A: The Ultra 5 225F has 10 cores and 10 threads, while the i9-14901E has 8 cores and 16 threads. The i9 relies on Hyper-Threading to reach 16 threads, whereas the Ultra 5 has no multi-threading.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The i9-14901E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Ultra 5 225F supports DDR5 only, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The i9-14901E records an average benchmark score of 37911, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs. The Ultra 5 225F scores 37313 on average, putting it in the 85th percentile.

Q: Does either processor have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the i9-14901E includes UHD Graphics 770. The Ultra 5 225F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from completely different Intel design generations and manufacturing approaches. The Core i9-14901E is built on Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, using Intel's 10 nm process node. It belongs to the Core 14th Gen family. The Core Ultra 5 225F adopts the newer Arrow Lake architecture (Arrow Lake-S) and is fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm node, representing the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. This process node difference is significant: the Ultra 5 packs 17,800 million transistors into a 243 mm² die, while the i9 uses a 257 mm² die with no transistor count recorded in the database.

Core configuration also diverges sharply. The i9-14901E offers 8 cores and 16 threads, enabled by simultaneous multi-threading. The Ultra 5 225F has 10 cores but only 10 threads, meaning it lacks multi-threading entirely. Cache hierarchies reflect the different design philosophies. Each i9 core gets 80 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, with a shared 36 MB L3 pool. The Ultra 5 provides a larger per-core L1 of 192 KB and 3 MB of L2, but a smaller shared L3 of 20 MB. The larger L3 on the i9 likely serves the 16-thread workload pattern, while the Ultra 5's bigger per-core caches suit its higher base clock and lower thread count.

Memory support differs as well. The i9-14901E supports DDR4 and DDR5, giving it flexibility with older platforms. The Ultra 5 is DDR5-only, and the database records a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The i9 also supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 5 does not. Socket requirements separate the two: the i9 uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Ultra 5 uses Intel Socket 1851. PCIe lane counts also differ, with the i9 offering Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes and the Ultra 5 offering Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

Both chips are desktop parts with a 65 W TDP and locked multipliers, and both are currently listed as Active in production. The i9 was released on June 30, 2024, while the Ultra 5 followed on January 6, 2025. The Ultra 5 carries a launch MSRP of $231. The i9's part number is Q49ESRNJH, and the Ultra 5's is SRQD2SRVF9.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark record paints a split picture, with each chip dominating distinct workload categories. The i9-14901E wins 6 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Ultra 5 225F takes 11.

The i9's most decisive victories come in Cinebench R23. In single-core, the i9 scores 3635 against 1893 for the Ultra 5, a 92% advantage. That is the largest single delta in the entire comparison. In multi-core R23, the i9 posts 25753 versus 16467, a 56.4% lead. These are the two heaviest rendering workloads in the set, and the i9's 5.60 GHz boost clock clearly pays off. The i9 also wins PassMark integer math with 112736 against 66417, a 69.7% margin, and PassMark physics with 3041 versus 2430, a 25.1% edge. In random string sorting, the i9 takes 39138 over 37325, a 4.9% win.

The Ultra 5 counters with a different set of strengths. Its largest win is in PassMark extended instructions, scoring 28027 against 17249, a 38.5% margin. It also dominates PassMark find prime numbers, 352 versus 189, a 46.3% lead. Data encryption goes to the Ultra 5 at 22648 versus 18571, an 18% edge, and data compression follows with 310843 versus 288777, a 7.1% advantage. Floating point math favors the Ultra 5, 92554 versus 81089, a 12.4% margin. The multithread PassMark test is close, with the Ultra 5 at 31004 versus 30298, a 2.3% lead. Single-thread PassMark also goes to the Ultra 5 by a hair, 4397 versus 4354, a 1% difference.

The Cinebench legacy tests are tight. R15 multi-core goes to the Ultra 5, 2660 versus 2595, a 2.4% margin. R20 multi-core also goes to the Ultra 5, 11059 versus 10816, a 2.2% edge. R20 single-core is another narrow Ultra 5 win, 1561 versus 1526, a 2.2% margin. The only Cinebench single-core win for the i9 is R15, where it scores 366 versus 287, a 27.5% lead.

Interpreting the data, the i9-14901E appears optimized for sustained multi-threaded rendering and integer-heavy tasks, while the Ultra 5 225F excels in encryption, compression, floating point, and extended instruction workloads. The i9's 92% single-core R23 victory suggests a substantial clock-driven advantage in lightly threaded rendering, but the Ultra 5's 1% PassMark single-thread win shows that advantage does not translate universally. The two chips land within 1.6% of each other in average benchmark score, confirming they are close overall despite their divergent strengths.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core i9-14901E | Intel Core Ultra 5 225F |

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

| Series | Core 14th Gen | Core Ultra Series 2 |

| Cores | 8 | 10 |

| Threads | 16 | 10 |

| Base Clock | 2.80 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.60 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-R | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 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) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

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

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

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

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

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Release Date | 2024-06-30 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $231 |

| Part Number | Q49ESRNJH | SRQD2SRVF9 |

Both parts share a 65 W TDP, dual-channel memory bus, desktop market segment, Active production status, and locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core i9-14901E wins for rendering and integer workloads. The 56.4% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and the 92% lead in R23 single-core make it the clear choice for CPU-based rendering, particularly in applications that scale with high boost clocks. The 69.7% margin in PassMark integer math reinforces this, as does the 25.1% physics win. The i9 also has the advantage of ECC memory support and DDR4 compatibility, which may matter for systems with existing DDR4 infrastructure or reliability requirements. Its 16 threads provide better parallelism for heavily threaded applications, and the larger 36 MB L3 cache likely contributes to the R23 results.

Intel Core Ultra 5 225F wins for encryption, compression, and floating point. The 38.5% extended instructions win and the 46.3% find prime numbers victory show strong performance in specialized instruction paths. Data encryption at 18% ahead and data compression at 7.1% ahead make it the better match for archive management, database workloads, and security-related tasks. The 12.4% floating point math edge adds scientific and financial workloads to its portfolio. The Ultra 5 also takes the PassMark multithread and single-thread aggregate tests, albeit by small margins, indicating balanced all-around performance. Its 10 physical cores, larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth support these strengths. The 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide more headroom for expansion cards, and the newer 3 nm TSMC process node may offer efficiency benefits not reflected in the benchmark data.

The recorded data shows that the i9-14901E is the better rendering processor, while the Ultra 5 225F is the more versatile generalist. The i9 wins fewer tests but wins them by larger margins, while the Ultra 5 wins more tests with smaller deltas. Buyers targeting rendering and integer processing should favor the i9, while those prioritizing encryption, compression, and floating point should look to the Ultra 5.