Intel Core i9-14901E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235A Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a dominant performance swing toward the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A, which wins 15 of the 17 recorded comparisons. The single largest victory for the Ultra 5 235A comes in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where it scores 392 against the Core i9-14901E's 189, a 51.8% advantage. Extended instructions also heavily favor the newer chip, with the Ultra 5 235A posting 31625 versus 17249, a 45.5% lead. Data encryption shows a 38.4% gap, with the Ultra 5 235A scoring 30136 compared to 18571.

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent pattern. Across R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core tests, the Ultra 5 235A holds a uniform 21.1% advantage. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 235A scores 32633 against 25753, while in single-core it scores 4607 against 3635. The R20 results follow the same shape: 13705 versus 10816 in multi-core, and 1934 versus 1526 in single-core. R15 shows 3289 versus 2595 in multi-core and 464 versus 366 in single-core. The consistency of the delta across all six Cinebench tests suggests a broad architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark multi-thread performance also favors the Ultra 5 235A, with a score of 38392 versus 30298, a 21.1% lead that mirrors the Cinebench delta. Data compression shows the Ultra 5 235A at 393800 against 288777, a 26.7% advantage. Floating point math scores 118778 versus 81089, a 31.7% gap. Random string sorting favors the Ultra 5 235A at 49489 versus 39138, a 20.9% lead. Even the single-thread PassMark test, which is the closest of the Ultra 5 235A's wins, shows the newer chip ahead at 4557 versus 4354, a 4.5% margin.

The Core i9-14901E claims only two wins, but both are substantial. PassMark integer math goes to the i9-14901E with 112736 against 88626, a 27.2% advantage. PassMark physics also belongs to the older chip, scoring 3041 versus 2437, a 24.8% lead. These two wins indicate that the i9-14901E retains a specific strength in integer-heavy and physics simulation workloads, even as it trails across the majority of the benchmark suite.

Looking at overall standing, the two processors occupy different tiers in the database. The Core i9-14901E sits at the 86th percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 37911. The Ultra 5 235A reaches the 90th percentile with an average score of 48201. The nearest rivals for the i9-14901E include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 at 37904, the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X at 37943, the Intel Core 5 211E at 37829, and the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 at 37804, all within 0.3% of its score. The Ultra 5 235A, by contrast, sits near the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 at 48171, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX at 48287, the AMD EPYC 4345P at 48470, and the AMD Ryzen 9 3900 at 47918.

The average benchmark score difference between the two chips is 10290 points in favor of the Ultra 5 235A. That figure reflects the breadth of the newer processor's lead across most recorded tests, even though the i9-14901E manages to close or reverse the gap in specific workloads.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A as the stronger overall processor. It wins 15 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, holds a 21.1% lead across every Cinebench test, and posts a higher average benchmark score and percentile ranking. For workloads that rely on Cinebench-style rendering, data compression, encryption, extended instructions, floating point math, or general multi-threaded throughput, the Ultra 5 235A is clearly ahead.

The Intel Core i9-14901E still has a defined role. Its 27.2% win in integer math and 24.8% win in physics indicate that certain compute patterns favor its design. Builders targeting integer-heavy processing or physics simulation workloads may prefer the i9-14901E despite its overall deficit. The i9-14901E also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Ultra 5 235A, which matters for specific reliability-focused use cases.

For most desktop applications, the Ultra 5 235A is the better choice according to the recorded measurements. The single-thread advantage of 4.5% in PassMark, combined with the 21.1% multi-core lead in Cinebench, gives it a well-rounded profile. The i9-14901E is not obsolete, but its appeal is narrower and tied to specific workloads where its architectural strengths show up in the numbers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A has an average benchmark score of 48201, compared to 37911 for the Intel Core i9-14901E.

Q: How many head-to-head benchmark comparisons does each processor win?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A wins 15 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the Intel Core i9-14901E wins 2.

Q: In which tests does the Intel Core i9-14901E beat the Ultra 5 235A?

A: The i9-14901E wins PassMark integer math with a score of 112736 against 88626, and PassMark physics with 3041 against 2437.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark lead in the comparison?

A: The Ultra 5 235A leads by 51.8% in PassMark find prime numbers, scoring 392 against the i9-14901E's 189.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Ultra 5 235A scores 32633, while the i9-14901E scores 25753, a 21.1% advantage for the Ultra 5 235A.

Q: What is the closest benchmark result between the two?

A: The closest result is PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra 5 235A scores 4557 against 4354, a 4.5% lead.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several core specifications. The Intel Core i9-14901E uses 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A uses 14 cores and 14 threads. The i9-14901E has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The Ultra 5 235A has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The i9-14901E runs at a higher boost frequency, while the Ultra 5 235A starts from a higher base frequency.

Both processors have a 65 W TDP. The socket differs: the i9-14901E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 235A uses Intel Socket 1851. Memory support also differs. The i9-14901E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 235A supports DDR5 only. The Ultra 5 235A has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the i9-14901E has no bandwidth figure in the database. The i9-14901E supports ECC memory; the Ultra 5 235A does not.

PCIe lanes differ as well. The i9-14901E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra 5 235A provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: the i9-14901E uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 5 235A uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU. The i9-14901E has a release date of 2024-06-30, while the Ultra 5 235A has a release date of 2025-07-28. The Ultra 5 235A has a launch MSRP of $269. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The process node and foundry differ significantly. The i9-14901E is built on a 10 nm process by Intel, with a die size of 257 mm². The Ultra 5 235A is built on a 3 nm process by TSMC, with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. The i9-14901E has no transistor count recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i9-14901E belongs to the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R codename, within Core 14th Gen. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A belongs to the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, within Core Ultra Series 2. The generation labels reflect this split: the i9-14901E is listed under Core i9 (Raptor Lake Refresh), while the Ultra 5 235A is listed under Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake).

Cache organization differs between the two. The i9-14901E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 5 235A has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The i9-14901E has more total L3, while the Ultra 5 235A has more per-core L1 and L2.

The manufacturing process separates the two clearly. The i9-14901E uses Intel's 10 nm node, while the Ultra 5 235A uses TSMC's 3 nm node. The foundry change is notable: the i9-14901E is fabricated by Intel, while the Ultra 5 235A is fabricated by TSMC. The die size is similar, 257 mm² for the i9-14901E and 243 mm² for the Ultra 5 235A, but the transistor count of 17,800 million is only recorded for the Ultra 5 235A.

The core and thread counts reflect different design philosophies. The i9-14901E uses 8 cores with hyperthreading to reach 16 threads. The Ultra 5 235A uses 14 cores but only 14 threads, indicating no hyperthreading. The Ultra 5 235A compensates with more physical cores, which likely drives its multi-thread benchmark advantage. The i9-14901E relies on higher boost clocks, reaching 5.60 GHz versus 5.00 GHz for the Ultra 5 235A, to support its strengths in integer math and physics.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A wins in rendering and synthetic multi-threaded workloads. Every Cinebench test, from R15 through R23, shows a 21.1% advantage. PassMark multi-thread also goes to the Ultra 5 235A with a 21.1% lead. Data compression favors the newer chip by 26.7%, making it the better option for archiving or compression-heavy tasks. Data encryption shows a 38.4% gap, so workloads involving encryption also lean heavily toward the Ultra 5 235A. Extended instructions, floating point math, and random string sorting all favor the Ultra 5 235A as well, with leads of 45.5%, 31.7%, and 20.9% respectively. Prime number finding, a purely computational stress test, goes to the Ultra 5 235A by 51.8%, its largest margin.

The Intel Core i9-14901E wins in two specific areas. PassMark integer math shows a 27.2% advantage, meaning integer-heavy compute tasks may run faster on the older chip. PassMark physics also goes to the i9-14901E with a 24.8% lead, suggesting physics simulation workloads benefit from its design. The i9-14901E also supports ECC memory, which is not available on the Ultra 5 235A, and supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, giving it flexibility in platform memory choice.

For a general-purpose desktop processor, the Ultra 5 235A is the stronger pick based on the recorded benchmark results. Its wins span a wider range of tests, and its average benchmark score of 48201 places it at the 90th percentile. The i9-14901E, at the 86th percentile, remains relevant for workloads that match its two wins and for systems requiring ECC memory support. The data does not suggest the i9-14901E is obsolete, but it does show the Ultra 5 235A as the more capable processor across most measured scenarios.