Intel Core i9-14901E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data splits the Intel Core i9-14901E and Intel Core Ultra 7 255H into two distinct performance profiles. The desktop-oriented i9-14901E dominates the Cinebench suite, while the mobile-focused Ultra 7 255H counters in several PassMark workloads.

Cinebench results heavily favor the Core i9-14901E. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the i9-14901E scores 25753 against 9240 for the Ultra 7 255H, a 178.7% advantage. The single-core gap is equally stark: 3635 versus 1843, a 97.2% delta. Cinebench R20 tells a similar story, with the i9-14901E leading 10816 to 6381 in multicore (69.5%) and 1526 to 900 in single-core (69.6%). Cinebench R15 shows the i9-14901E ahead 2595 to 1515 in multicore (71.3%) and 366 to 251 in single-core (45.8%). These results indicate the i9-14901E delivers roughly double the multi-threaded rendering performance in the newest Cinebench iteration, a substantial margin that suggests fundamental architectural differences in sustained heavy workloads.

PassMark results show a split. The Ultra 7 255H wins data compression 298850 to 288777 (3.4% faster), data encryption 23395 to 18571 (20.6% faster), extended instructions 23755 to 17249 (27.4% faster), find prime numbers 303 to 189 (37.6% faster), and floating point math 98796 to 81089 (17.9% faster). The i9-14901E counters with integer math 112736 to 77975 (44.6% faster), physics 3041 to 2254 (34.9% faster), and random string sorting 39138 to 36058 (8.5% faster). PassMark multithread is nearly tied, with the Ultra 7 255H ahead 30703 to 30298, a 1.3% delta. PassMark single-thread also favors the i9-14901E by a slim 0.9% margin, 4354 to 4317. The overall win count stands at 11 for the i9-14901E and 6 for the Ultra 7 255H, but the PassMark workloads where the Ultra 7 wins show it is not merely slower across the board.

The data implies the i9-14901E's higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz, versus 5.10 GHz for the Ultra 7 255H, contributes to its single-core dominance. The i9-14901E's 36 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 24 MB on the Ultra 7 255H, likely supports its lead in Cinebench and integer-heavy tasks. The Ultra 7 255H's wins in encryption and extended instructions suggest its Arrow Lake architecture handles certain instruction sets more efficiently, despite lower raw clocks and a 28 W TDP against the i9-14901E's 65 W TDP.

The Verdict

Benchmark results indicate the Intel Core i9-14901E is the stronger processor for sustained multi-threaded workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 25753 places it 178.7% ahead of the Ultra 7 255H, and its average benchmark score of 37911 exceeds the Ultra 7 255H's 33537. The i9-14901E also ranks at the 86th percentile among all CPUs in the database, versus the 83rd percentile for the Ultra 7 255H. The i9-14901E's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 (average score 37904, 0% delta) and the Intel Core 5 211E (37829, 0.2% delta), showing it sits at the top of its immediate performance class.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H is the better choice for efficiency-sensitive scenarios. Its 28 W TDP, compared to 65 W for the i9-14901E, allows it to fit in mobile platforms with the Intel BGA 2049 socket. The Ultra 7 255H also wins specific PassMark workloads, including data encryption and floating point math, where it outperforms the i9-14901E by 20.6% and 17.9% respectively. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 240 (33542, 0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS (33667, -0.4% delta), indicating it competes in a lower average-score tier than the i9-14901E.

The data suggests two different buyers. The i9-14901E suits desktop users who prioritize raw rendering performance in Cinebench-class applications. The Ultra 7 255H suits mobile users who need encryption, compression, and floating-point throughput while operating within a 28 W power envelope. Neither processor is universally superior; the choice depends on workload priorities and platform constraints.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-14901E wins in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core. It also leads in PassMark integer math (44.6% ahead), physics (34.9% ahead), and random string sorting (8.5% ahead). These wins point to heavy integer arithmetic, physics simulations, and sorting algorithms as its strengths. The i9-14901E's 8 cores and 16 threads, with 2 MB L2 cache per core and 36 MB shared L3, support these results.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H wins in PassMark data compression (3.4% ahead), data encryption (20.6% ahead), extended instructions (27.4% ahead), find prime numbers (37.6% ahead), floating point math (17.9% ahead), and PassMark multithread (1.3% ahead). Its 16 cores and 16 threads (no hyperthreading) with 3 MB L2 cache per core and 24 MB shared L3 handle these workloads efficiently. The Ultra 7 255H's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, recorded in the database, likely contributes to its compression and encryption wins.

The i9-14901E's single-thread score of 4354 in PassMark, a 0.9% lead over the Ultra 7 255H's 4317, confirms its per-core advantage, but the Ultra 7 255H compensates in multi-threaded PassMark through its higher core count. The data shows a trade-off: the i9-14901E excels in Cinebench and integer-heavy tasks, while the Ultra 7 255H excels in encryption, floating point, and extended instruction workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E scores 3635 in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is 97.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H's score of 1843.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H win any benchmark against the i9-14901E?

A: Yes, the Ultra 7 255H wins 6 benchmarks, including PassMark data encryption (23395 vs 18571, a 20.6% advantage) and PassMark floating point math (98796 vs 81089, a 17.9% advantage).

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores between the two?

A: The i9-14901E has an average benchmark score of 37911, while the Ultra 7 255H has 33537. The i9-14901E is 13% higher in this metric.

Q: How do their core counts and threads compare?

A: The i9-14901E has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning the Ultra 7 has no hyperthreading.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The i9-14901E boosts to 5.60 GHz, compared to 5.10 GHz for the Ultra 7 255H.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The i9-14901E has a TDP of 65 W, while the Ultra 7 255H has a TDP of 28 W.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and manufacturing processes. The Intel Core i9-14901E uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. Its die size is 257 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H uses the Arrow Lake architecture, codename Arrow Lake-H, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The die size for the Ultra 7 255H is not recorded in the database.

Cache hierarchies differ. The i9-14901E has 80 KB L1 cache per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Ultra 7 255H has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. The i9-14901E's larger L3 cache (36 MB vs 24 MB) likely explains its Cinebench multicore lead, while the Ultra 7 255H's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches may contribute to its encryption and floating-point wins.

Integrated graphics differ. The i9-14901E uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 7 255H uses Arc Graphics 140T. Memory support also varies: the i9-14901E supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 255H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both support ECC memory. The i9-14901E uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform, while the Ultra 7 255H uses Intel BGA 2049, a mobile socket.

Process node differences are significant: 10 nm versus 3 nm. The 3 nm TSMC process on the Ultra 7 255H allows for 16 cores in a 28 W TDP package, while the 10 nm Intel process on the i9-14901E uses 8 cores at 65 W. The Ultra 7 255H also has more PCIe lanes (20 versus 16, both Gen 5), which may benefit mobile platforms with additional I/O requirements.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several recorded specifications. Core count: 8 cores for the i9-14901E versus 16 cores for the Ultra 7 255H. Thread count: 16 threads for both, but the i9-14901E uses hyperthreading while the Ultra 7 255H does not. Base clock: 2.80 GHz for the i9-14901E versus 2.00 GHz for the Ultra 7 255H. Boost clock: 5.60 GHz versus 5.10 GHz. TDP: 65 W versus 28 W.

Socket type: Intel Socket 1700 for the i9-14901E versus Intel BGA 2049 for the Ultra 7 255H. Architecture: Raptor Lake versus Arrow Lake. Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm. Foundry: Intel versus TSMC. Die size: 257 mm² for the i9-14901E, with no recorded figure for the Ultra 7 255H.

Cache: L1 is 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core; L2 is 2 MB per core versus 3 MB per core; L3 is 36 MB shared versus 24 MB shared. Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth: not recorded for the i9-14901E, while the Ultra 7 255H has 102.4 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 5 with 16 lanes versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 770 versus Arc Graphics 140T. Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile. Release date: 2024-06-30 versus 2025-01-12. Part numbers: Q49ESRNJH versus SRQAN. Both are active production, unlocked multipliers are false for both, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP.