Intel Core i9-14901E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 226V Comparison

The Intel Core i9-14901E and the Intel Core Ultra 5 226V represent two distinct approaches to processor design within Intel's current lineup. The i9-14901E is a desktop-focused, high-throughput part, while the Ultra 5 226V is a mobile-oriented, power-efficient design. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap between them, with the i9-14901E winning all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons.

The Verdict

The data clearly splits these two processors by use case and platform. The Intel Core i9-14901E is the choice for users building a desktop system where raw compute throughput, multi-threaded workloads, and maximum clock speeds are the priority. It holds an average benchmark score of 37911, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, scores 37904, a difference of 0%, showing the i9-14901E sits at a competitive performance plateau.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 226V targets a completely different segment. With an average benchmark score of 19368, it sits in the 73rd percentile, and its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7533HS, scores 19364, also a 0% difference. The Ultra 5 226V trades significant compute performance for a dramatically lower power envelope, making it suitable for mobile platforms. Users who require sustained heavy processing, such as video rendering or software compilation, should select the i9-14901E based on its benchmark dominance. Users who need a capable processor for a thin-and-light laptop, where battery life and thermals are more critical than peak performance, would find the Ultra 5 226V's profile more appropriate.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The i9-14901E uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R codename, and is manufactured on a 10 nm process node by Intel. The Ultra 5 226V uses the Lunar Lake architecture and is built on a 3 nm process node by TSMC. This process difference is a primary factor in the power and efficiency disparity between the two chips.

Both processors feature 8 physical cores, but they handle threading differently. The i9-14901E supports 16 threads, meaning it has simultaneous multithreading enabled. The Ultra 5 226V supports only 8 threads, indicating it lacks that capability. The cache hierarchies are also notably different. The i9-14901E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and a substantial 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 5 226V has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, but only 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The i9-14901E's much larger L3 pool is a significant advantage for workloads that repeatedly access a large working set.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The i9-14901E dominates every recorded benchmark. The largest margin appears in Passmark integer math, where the i9-14901E scores 112736 against the Ultra 5 226V's 38647, a 191.7% advantage. This indicates a massive difference in raw integer processing throughput, likely driven by the i9-14901E's higher clocks and simultaneous multithreading.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i9-14901E scores 25753 versus 9848 for the Ultra 5 226V, a 161.5% difference. This is the largest margin in the multi-core rendering tests and confirms the i9-14901E's superiority in heavily threaded workloads. The Cinebench R23 single-core test also favors the i9-14901E, with a score of 3635 against 1744, a 108.4% lead. This single-core advantage is notable because it shows the i9-14901E is not just better in multi-threaded scenarios but also faster on a per-thread basis, despite the Ultra 5 226V's modern 3 nm process.

The i9-14901E also wins in Passmark physics, scoring 3041 versus 1449, a 109.9% lead. Passmark multithread shows a 69.7% advantage for the i9-14901E (30298 versus 17850). In data compression, the i9-14901E scores 288777 against 170687, a 69.2% lead. The smallest margins are still decisive. In Passmark single-thread, the i9-14901E scores 4354 versus 3754, a 16% lead. In Passmark extended instructions, it scores 17249 versus 14724, a 17.1% lead. In Passmark find prime numbers, the scores are 189 and 166, a 13.9% lead. Even in these closer tests, the i9-14901E maintains a consistent advantage.

Specification Differences

The base clock of the i9-14901E is 2.80 GHz, while the Ultra 5 226V has a base clock of 2.10 GHz. The boost clock of the i9-14901E is 5.60 GHz, compared to 4.50 GHz for the Ultra 5 226V. The i9-14901E has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Ultra 5 226V has a TDP of 17 watts. This 48-watt difference explains the performance gap and highlights the Ultra 5 226V's efficiency focus.

The i9-14901E uses the Intel Socket 1700 and is designated for the Desktop market segment. The Ultra 5 226V uses the Intel BGA 2833 socket and is designated for the Mobile segment. The i9-14901E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 5 226V's supported memory type is listed as dependent on the motherboard. The i9-14901E supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 5 226V does not. The i9-14901E provides Gen 5 PCIe with 16 lanes, whereas the Ultra 5 226V provides Gen 5 PCIe with only 4 lanes.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The i9-14901E includes UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 5 226V includes Arc 130V. The i9-14901E has a die size of 257 mm², while the die size for the Ultra 5 226V is not recorded. The i9-14901E was released on 2024-06-30, and the Ultra 5 226V was released on 2024-09-23. Neither processor has a launch MSRP recorded, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, which is higher than the 4.50 GHz boost clock of the Intel Core Ultra 5 226V.

Q: What is the difference in multi-core performance?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel Core i9-14901E scores 25753, which is 161.5% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 5 226V's score of 9848.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores?

A: Yes, both have 8 physical cores. However, the Intel Core i9-14901E supports 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 226V supports 8 threads.

Q: Which processor uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 226V uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC. The Intel Core i9-14901E uses a 10 nm process node from Intel.

Q: How does the L3 cache compare between the two?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, which is significantly larger than the 8 MB of shared L3 cache on the Intel Core Ultra 5 226V.

Q: Which processor is designed for a mobile platform?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 226V is in the Mobile market segment and uses the Intel BGA 2833 socket. The Intel Core i9-14901E is in the Desktop market segment and uses the Intel Socket 1700.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-14901E wins in every scenario where compute performance is the primary metric. The data indicates it is far superior for multi-threaded rendering, with a 161.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and a 69.5% lead in Cinebench R20 multi-core. It is also the stronger choice for integer-heavy workloads, as shown by its 191.7% lead in Passmark integer math. For users running video encoding, 3D rendering, scientific simulations, or heavy multitasking on a desktop, the i9-14901E's benchmark results make it the clear selection. Its 16 threads and larger 36 MB L3 cache directly support these workloads. The 16-lane Gen 5 PCIe connection also positions it for systems with discrete graphics and multiple high-bandwidth devices.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 226V has no benchmark wins in this comparison. Its advantage lies not in performance but in its 17-watt TDP, which is substantially lower than the i9-14901E's 65-watt TDP. This makes it the appropriate choice for a mobile platform where power consumption and thermal output are the primary constraints. The smaller 3 nm process node and BGA 2833 socket are consistent with a soldered, low-power mobile design. The recorded data shows the Ultra 5 226V's performance is closer to other mobile processors like the AMD Ryzen 5 7533HS, with a 0% delta in average score, placing it in a competitive position for its intended category. Its 4 PCIe lanes and lack of ECC support further indicate a design focused on mainstream mobile computing rather than heavy workstation tasks.