Intel Core i9-14901E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner in the Intel Core Ultra 5 245, which takes 15 of the 17 recorded tests. The Intel Core i9-14901E manages only 2 wins, but those wins are notable in specific workloads.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Core Ultra 5 245 leads by a consistent 21.8% across all six tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 5 scores 3318 against 2595, and in singlecore it scores 468 against 366. The R20 multicore result is 13828 versus 10816, with singlecore at 1952 versus 1526. The R23 multicore gap shows 32924 versus 25753, while singlecore comes in at 4648 versus 3635. This uniformity suggests the architectural advantage of the Ultra 5 carries through every render workload measured.

PassMark tests reveal a wider spread of results. The largest deficit for the i9-14901E appears in extended instructions, where the Ultra 5 scores 33304 against 17249, a 48.2% advantage. Prime number finding shows the same 48.2% gap, with scores of 365 versus 189. Data encryption favors the Ultra 5 by 38.6% (30236 versus 18571), floating point math by 32.7% (120548 versus 81089), and data compression by 28% (400942 versus 288777). Multithread performance sits 21.7% higher on the Ultra 5 (38706 versus 30298), and random string sorting favors it by 20.4% (49140 versus 39138).

The i9-14901E fights back in two areas. Integer math shows a 23.6% win for the i9, scoring 112736 versus 91187 on the Ultra 5. Physics tests also go to the i9, with 3041 versus 2569, an 18.4% advantage. Single-thread performance is nearly tied: the Ultra 5 scores 4394 against 4354, a marginal 0.9% gap that still counts as a win for the newer part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests overall?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core i9-14901E wins 2 tests (PassMark integer math and physics).

Q: How large is the Cinebench performance gap?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245 leads by 21.8% in every Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 test, both multicore and singlecore.

Q: Is there any workload where the i9-14901E is clearly better?

A: Yes. The i9-14901E beats the Ultra 5 by 23.6% in PassMark integer math and by 18.4% in PassMark physics.

Q: How close are the two in single-thread performance?

A: Very close. The Ultra 5 scores 4394 in PassMark single-thread versus 4354 for the i9, a difference of only 0.9%.

Q: Which chip has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245 averages 48995 across all recorded benchmarks, while the i9-14901E averages 37911.

Q: How do their overall CPU percentiles compare?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245 sits at the 90th percentile against all CPUs, while the i9-14901E sits at the 86th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and foundries. The i9-14901E uses Raptor Lake architecture (Raptor Lake-R codename) built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 5 245 uses Arrow Lake architecture (Arrow Lake-S codename) built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The transistor count for the Ultra 5 is 17,800 million, while the i9's transistor count is not recorded in the database. Die size is close: 257 mm² for the i9 versus 243 mm² for the Ultra 5.

Cache organization differs significantly. The i9-14901E provides 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core, with 36 MB shared L3. The Ultra 5 provides 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core, with 24 MB shared L3. The larger per-core caches on the Ultra 5 reflect its newer design, while the i9 compensates with a larger shared L3 pool.

Memory support also diverges. The i9-14901E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 supports DDR5 only. Both run dual-channel memory. The Ultra 5 records a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s; the database has no bandwidth figure for the i9. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs. The i9-14901E offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 5 offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are different as well: the i9 uses UHD Graphics 770, and the Ultra 5 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

The core counts reflect different design philosophies. The i9-14901E uses 8 cores and 16 threads, indicating hyperthreading. The Ultra 5 uses 14 cores and 14 threads, meaning no hyperthreading on any core. This explains why thread counts match core counts on the Ultra 5.

Specification Differences

The socket changes completely: the i9-14901E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 uses Intel Socket 1851. Base clocks differ, with the i9 at 2.80 GHz and the Ultra 5 at 3.50 GHz. Boost clocks also differ, with the i9 reaching 5.60 GHz and the Ultra 5 reaching 5.10 GHz. Both have a 65 TDP and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Release timing places the i9-14901E on 2024-06-30 and the Ultra 5 on 2025-01-06. Both are listed as Active in production status and target the Desktop market segment. The Ultra 5 has a launch MSRP of $270; the i9 has no recorded launch MSRP. Part numbers are Q49ESRNJH for the i9 and SRVFE for the Ultra 5.

The series names reflect their positions: the i9 belongs to Core 14th Gen, while the Ultra 5 belongs to Core Ultra Series 2. The i9's generation is listed as Core i9 (Raptor Lake Refresh), and the Ultra 5's as Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake).

The Verdict

The recorded data points decisively toward the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 for most buyers. It wins 15 of 17 benchmark comparisons, including every Cinebench test, all major PassMark throughput tests, and even single-thread performance by a narrow 0.9% margin. Its 90th percentile ranking versus 86th for the i9 confirms the overall standing. The average benchmark score of 48995 versus 37911 represents a substantial gap of about 29% in aggregate performance.

The i9-14901E retains two specific strengths: integer math and physics workloads. Its 23.6% integer math advantage and 18.4% physics advantage suggest that applications relying heavily on those operations may still favor the older architecture. However, those wins cover only a narrow slice of the tested workload space.

For general desktop use, rendering, data compression, encryption, and most compute tasks, the Core Ultra 5 245 is the stronger choice based on this data. The i9-14901E serves a niche role for workloads that specifically benefit from its integer and physics performance. The platform differences reinforce this split: the Ultra 5 requires the newer Socket 1851 and DDR5-only memory, while the i9 can work with DDR4 or DDR5 on Socket 1700. Buyers already invested in DDR4 platforms may find the i9 more practical despite its lower benchmark standing.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 245 dominates in rendering and content creation. All six Cinebench tests, from R15 to R23 and covering both single and multicore, go to the Ultra 5 with a uniform 21.8% lead. The multithread PassMark score of 38706 against 30298 confirms strong parallel performance. Data compression at 400942 versus 288777 makes the Ultra 5 the clear pick for archiving and file handling. Data encryption at 30236 versus 18571 benefits security and storage applications. Floating point math at 120548 versus 81089 supports scientific and simulation workloads. Extended instructions at 33304 versus 17249 and prime number finding at 365 versus 189 reinforce the Ultra 5's advantage in computation-heavy tasks. Random string sorting at 49140 versus 39138 helps database and sorting workloads. Even the single-thread PassMark score, though close at 4394 versus 4354, goes to the Ultra 5.

The Intel Core i9-14901E wins in integer math, scoring 112736 against 91187, a 23.6% margin. This points to workloads like integer-heavy financial calculations, certain database operations, and legacy applications that rely on scalar integer processing. The physics score of 3041 versus 2569, an 18.4% advantage, indicates better performance in physics simulation tasks, possibly relevant for some game engines or engineering tools.

The overall pattern is straightforward: the Ultra 5 is the general-purpose winner with broad superiority across nearly every measured category, while the i9-14901E is a specialist that wins only where integer throughput and physics calculations dominate.