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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245T and the Intel Core i9-14901E are both 65W desktop processors, but they approach performance from opposite design philosophies. The Ultra 5 245T uses a newer, denser process and more physical cores, while the i9-14901E relies on higher clock speeds and a larger shared cache. Benchmark data shows a clear split: the Ultra 5 wins 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, yet the i9 takes decisive victories in specific workloads that favor its architecture. Neither chip is a universal winner; the right choice depends entirely on whether your primary applications are memory-intensive, integer-heavy, or physics-based.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245T is the dominant performer in the vast majority of synthetic workloads. Its wins span all Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23) in both single-core and multi-core tests, with consistent deltas around 1.6% to 1.8%. The PassMark suite shows even larger margins in its favor: a 27.4% lead in data encryption, a 28% lead in extended instructions, a 33.8% lead in floating point math, and a massive 71.4% lead in find prime numbers. It also edges out the i9 in multithread (1.8%) and single-thread (0.3%) aggregate scores.

The Intel Core i9-14901E wins in four specific areas, and they are not marginal victories. It leads by 21.3% in integer math, by 25.1% in physics, by 10.7% in random string sorting, and by 1.7% in data compression. These are substantial, workload-defining advantages. If your software relies on heavy integer arithmetic or physics simulation, the i9 is not just slightly better—it is in a different performance class. The data compression win, while smaller, still matters for archival and file-handling tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has better single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245T wins every single-core test in the data. In Cinebench R23, it scores 3699 versus 3635 for the i9-14901E, a 1.8% lead. PassMark single-thread shows a narrower 0.3% margin (4367 vs 4354).

Q: Is the i9-14901E better for multi-threaded workloads?

A: No. Despite having 8 cores and 16 threads versus the Ultra 5's 14 cores and 14 threads, the i9 loses the multi-core Cinebench tests. The Ultra 5 scores 26208 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 25753 for the i9, a 1.8% advantage. PassMark multithread also goes to the Ultra 5 (30833 vs 30298).

Q: Which CPU is significantly faster for encryption or cryptography?

A: The Ultra 5 245T is overwhelmingly faster. Its PassMark data encryption score is 23656, compared to 18571 for the i9-14901E, giving the Ultra 5 a 27.4% lead. This is one of the largest margins in the entire comparison.

Q: Are there workloads where the i9-14901E is clearly the right pick?

A: Yes, specifically for integer math and physics. The i9 scores 112736 in PassMark integer math versus 88676 for the Ultra 5, a 21.3% advantage. In PassMark physics, the i9 scores 3041 versus 2278, a 25.1% lead. These are not close calls.

Q: How do these CPUs compare to other market options?

A: Both sit at the 86th percentile of all CPUs. The Ultra 5 245T has an average benchmark score of 38194, placing it within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen 7 250 (38221) and Intel Core i5-14490F (38149). The i9-14901E averages 37911, nearly matching the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 (37904) and AMD Ryzen 7 9700X (37943).

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory and modern PCIe?

A: Yes, both support ECC memory. For PCIe, the Ultra 5 245T provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the i9-14901E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 5 has more PCIe lanes available.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result in the comparison is PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 5 245T scores 324 against the i9-14901E's 189—a 71.4% blowout. This is a pure computational throughput test that heavily favors the Ultra 5's architecture. Similarly, floating point math shows a 33.8% lead for the Ultra 5 (108499 vs 81089), and extended instructions go to the Ultra 5 by 28% (22071 vs 17249). These three tests alone demonstrate that the Arrow Lake design has a fundamental advantage in math-heavy and instruction-diverse workloads.

The i9-14901E's counter-punch comes in integer math, where it scores 112736 against the Ultra 5's 88676, a 21.3% margin. This is the single biggest win for the i9, and it suggests that Raptor Lake's core design remains superior for integer-heavy code. The physics test is similarly decisive: 3041 for the i9 versus 2278 for the Ultra 5, a 25.1% gap. Random string sorting also favors the i9 by 10.7% (39138 vs 34931), while data compression is a closer 1.7% win for the i9 (288777 vs 283812).

In the Cinebench suite, the Ultra 5 wins every test by a consistent 1.8% margin, whether single-core or multi-core, across R15, R20, and R23. The scores are close—R23 multi-core is 26208 vs 25753—but the consistency is notable. PassMark multithread shows the same 1.8% edge (30833 vs 30298), while PassMark single-thread is a near-tie at 0.3% (4367 vs 4354). The overall win count stands at 13 for the Ultra 5 and 4 for the i9, but the i9's wins are in categories where its margins are far larger than the Ultra 5's typical wins.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious split: the Ultra 5 245T has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the i9-14901E has 8 cores and 16 threads. This means the Ultra 5 has more physical cores but no hyper-threading, whereas the i9 has fewer cores but uses hyper-threading to reach 16 threads. The i9 compensates with higher clocks: a 2.80 GHz base and 5.60 GHz boost versus the Ultra 5's 2.20 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost.

Cache configurations also differ significantly. The Ultra 5 has 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, with 24 MB of shared L3. The i9 has 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, but a much larger 36 MB of shared L3. The i9's larger L3 pool likely contributes to its integer math and physics wins. Memory support differs: the Ultra 5 supports only DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and a rated bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the i9 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus (no bandwidth figure given). Both support ECC memory.

The platform sockets are incompatible: the Ultra 5 uses Intel Socket 1851, while the i9 uses Intel Socket 1700. The Ultra 5 offers more PCIe connectivity with Gen 5 and 20 lanes (CPU only), versus the i9's Gen 5 and 16 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ as well: the Ultra 5 has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the i9 has UHD Graphics 770. The Ultra 5 launched on 2025-01-06 with a launch MSRP of $270; the i9 launched on 2024-06-30 with no MSRP listed in the data.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs represent different manufacturing and design generations. The Ultra 5 245T is built on Arrow Lake-S using a 3 nm process at TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The i9-14901E is Raptor Lake-R, built on a 10 nm process at Intel, with a 257 mm² die and no transistor count listed. The process node difference is significant: 3 nm versus 10 nm gives the Ultra 5 a density and efficiency advantage that likely explains its wins in encryption and floating point math.

The core architectures diverge as well. The Ultra 5 uses the Arrow Lake design with 14 cores, all of which appear to be performance-oriented given the lack of hyper-threading. The i9 uses Raptor Lake Refresh with 8 cores and 16 threads, relying on hyper-threading and a higher boost clock (5.60 GHz vs 5.10 GHz) to drive performance. The i9's larger 36 MB L3 cache versus the Ultra 5's 24 MB L3 is a key architectural difference, favoring the i9 in workloads that benefit from large shared caches, such as integer math and physics.

The foundry split is notable: TSMC for the Ultra 5 versus Intel for the i9. The Ultra 5's integrated graphics are newer (Arc Xe-LPG with 64 execution units) versus the i9's older UHD Graphics 770. The memory controller also differs, with the Ultra 5 exclusively supporting DDR5 while the i9 retains backward compatibility with DDR4. Both CPUs are unlocked multiplier? No—both have multiplierUnlocked set to false, so neither is overclockable via the multiplier.

The Verdict

Choose the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T if your workload involves encryption, floating point math, extended instructions, prime number calculation, or any Cinebench-style rendering. It wins 13 of 17 benchmarks and holds the overall average score advantage (38194 vs 37911). The 27.4% encryption lead and 33.8% floating point lead are decisive for security, scientific, and media workloads. The Ultra 5 also offers more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16) and a smaller, more efficient 3 nm process.

Choose the Intel Core i9-14901E if your primary applications are integer-math heavy, physics-based, or involve data compression and sorting. The 21.3% integer math lead and 25.1% physics lead are significant enough to justify picking the i9 despite losing most benchmarks. The 10.7% random string sorting advantage also matters for database or text-processing tasks. The i9's larger 36 MB L3 cache and higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz are the likely reasons for these wins.

For a general-purpose build, the Ultra 5 245T is the safer bet due to its broader benchmark dominance and higher average score. For a specialized workstation where integer and physics performance are paramount, the i9-14901E is the clear winner. Neither chip is overclockable, and both run at 65W TDP, so power consumption is a wash. The socket choice (1851 vs 1700) will dictate your motherboard, and the Ultra 5's DDR5-only support versus the i9's DDR4/DDR5 flexibility could influence platform costs—though the Ultra 5's $270 launch MSRP is the only price data available.