Intel Core i9-14901E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits cleanly between the two processors, with the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 winning 14 of the 17 recorded comparisons. The Intel Core i9-14901E claims only 3 wins, but those wins are concentrated in specific workloads. In Cinebench R20, the i9-14901E delivers a multicore score of 10816 against 6268 for the Ultra 7 265, a margin of 72.6%. The single-core R20 result follows the same pattern: 1526 versus 884, again a 72.6% advantage for the i9. These are substantial gaps, not marginal ones.

The Ultra 7 265 strikes back in Cinebench R15 and R23. In R15 multicore, it scores 4255 to the i9's 2595, a 39% lead. The R15 single-core test shows 600 versus 366, also a 39% delta. R23 multicore sees the Ultra 7 at 42216 against 25753, another 39% margin. The R23 single-core result is 5960 versus 3635, again 39%. Across every Cinebench version, the winner holds a consistent margin, which suggests the difference is architectural rather than workload-specific.

PassMark results reinforce the Ultra 7's dominance in most compute-heavy tasks. Data compression shows 522983 versus 288777, a 44.8% lead. Data encryption is 40456 versus 18571, a 54.1% gap. Extended instructions deliver 41478 against 17249, a 58.4% advantage. Prime number finding scores 418 versus 189, a 54.8% delta. Floating point math hits 172776 versus 81089, a 53.1% lead. Integer math is closer: 134773 against 112736, a 16.4% margin. Multithread performance shows 49682 versus 30298, a 39% delta. Random string sorting lands at 63833 versus 39138, a 38.7% gap.

The i9-14901E does win the PassMark physics test with 3041 points against 2923 for the Ultra 7, a narrow 4% margin. It also edges out in single-thread PassMark scoring? No, the Ultra 7 wins that one: 4689 versus 4354, a 7.1% lead. The i9's three wins are Cinebench R20 multicore, Cinebench R20 single-core, and PassMark physics. The Ultra 7 takes everything else.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from completely different design families. The i9-14901E uses Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm Intel process, with a die size of 257 mm². The Ultra 7 265 uses Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process, with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. The node shrink is significant: 10 nm versus 3 nm, and the foundry switches from Intel to TSMC.

Core counts differ sharply. The i9-14901E has 8 cores and 16 threads, meaning it uses Hyper-Threading. The Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads, so no Hyper-Threading; every core is a physical core. Cache layouts also diverge. The i9 offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. Despite having fewer total threads, the Ultra 7's larger per-core caches and higher physical core count drive its multicore wins.

Clock speeds favor the i9 on paper. Its base clock is 2.80 GHz with a boost of 5.60 GHz. The Ultra 7 sits at 2.40 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost. Yet the Ultra 7 still wins most single-thread tests, including Cinebench R23 single-core by 39%. That indicates the Arrow Lake core design delivers more instructions per clock than Raptor Lake, despite lower clocks.

Memory support separates them further. The i9-14901E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and ECC enabled. The Ultra 7 supports DDR5 only, dual-channel, with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and no ECC. The i9 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 7 uses Intel Socket 1851. PCIe lanes also differ: the i9 has Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, the Ultra 7 has Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ too: the i9 carries UHD Graphics 770, the Ultra 7 has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU.

The i9's production status is Active, released on 2024-06-30. The Ultra 7 is also Active, released on 2025-01-06. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The i9's part number is Q49ESRNJH, the Ultra 7's is SRQCX.

Where Each One Wins

The i9-14901E wins in Cinebench R20, both single and multicore, and in PassMark physics. The R20 results are striking because they directly contradict the R15 and R23 outcomes. This suggests the i9's higher boost clock, 5.60 GHz, gives it an edge in workloads that respond to raw clock speed and do not scale with core count. The physics test win, though small at 4%, points to a similar pattern: physics simulations often favor higher per-thread throughput.

The Ultra 7 265 wins everywhere else. Its 20 physical cores dominate threaded workloads, as seen in Cinebench R23 multicore and PassMark multithread, both showing 39% leads over the i9. Data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, and random string sorting all show leads between 38.7% and 58.4%. These are all workloads that scale with core count or benefit from the larger L2 cache per core (3 MB versus 2 MB) and the bigger L1 (192 KB versus 80 KB per core).

Integer math is the closest PassMark result, with the Ultra 7 leading by only 16.4%. That workload appears less sensitive to core count and more dependent on memory latency or branch prediction. Single-thread PassMark shows a modest 7.1% lead for the Ultra 7, which aligns with its superior IPC despite lower clocks.

The split is clear: the i9 wins in a narrow set of clock-sensitive tasks, the Ultra 7 wins in the vast majority of compute workloads, especially those that use many threads or large data sets.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is the stronger processor overall. It wins 14 of 17 benchmark comparisons, holds a 93rd percentile ranking against all CPUs, and posts an average benchmark score of 64640. The i9-14901E sits at the 86th percentile with an average score of 37911. The Ultra 7's nearest rivals include AMD EPYC parts like the 4464P, 7343, and 9124, plus the Core Ultra 7 265F, all within 0.7% of its average score. The i9's nearest rivals are AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, Ryzen 7 9700X, Intel Core 5 211E, and AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132, all within 0.3%.

For workloads that rely on Cinebench R20-style rendering or physics calculations, the i9-14901E holds a clear advantage. Its 72.6% lead in R20 multicore is not trivial, and the 4% physics win confirms some niche utility. But those are isolated wins against a processor that beats it by 39% or more in most other tests.

The Ultra 7 265 is the pick for general desktop computing, multi-threaded productivity, data compression, encryption, and floating point math. Its 20 physical cores, larger caches, and 3 nm process give it a structural advantage that clock speed alone cannot overcome. The i9-14901E makes sense only for users who specifically target R20-style benchmarks or physics-heavy single-thread workloads. The data does not support choosing the i9 for any broader purpose. The Ultra 7 265 is the better all-around processor, and by a wide margin.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins 14 of 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core i9-14901E wins 3.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margins are 72.6% in favor of the i9-14901E in Cinebench R20 multicore and single-core, and 58.4% in favor of the Ultra 7 265 in PassMark extended instructions.

Q: Does the i9-14901E have higher clock speeds than the Ultra 7 265?

A: Yes. The i9 has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The Ultra 7 has a base of 2.40 GHz and a boost of 5.30 GHz. Despite this, the Ultra 7 wins most single-thread tests.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads. The i9-14901E has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The i9-14901E supports ECC memory. The Ultra 7 265 does not.

Q: What are the socket requirements for each processor?

A: The i9-14901E uses Intel Socket 1700. The Ultra 7 265 uses Intel Socket 1851. They are not interchangeable.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i9-14901E | Intel Core Ultra 7 265 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 8 | 20 |

| Threads | 16 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 2.80 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.60 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 257 mm² | 243 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 36 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Release Date | 2024-06-30 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $394 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | Q49ESRNJH | SRQCX |