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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive picture: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core i9-14901E. The largest margins appear in extended instruction workloads. The Core Ultra 7 265F scores 39,235 in Passmark extended instructions versus 17,249 for the i9-14901E, a 56% advantage. Data encryption shows a similar gap, with the Ultra 7 265F at 39,468 and the i9-14901E at 18,571, a 52.9% difference. Floating point math also favors the newer processor heavily: 173,855 versus 81,089, a 53.4% lead.

The Cinebench suite confirms the pattern across both single-core and multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 265F records 41,980 points against 25,753 for the i9-14901E, a 38.7% margin. Single-core R23 shows 5,926 versus 3,635, also a 38.7% difference. The same 38.7% delta appears consistently in R15 and R20 multi-core and single-core tests, indicating a uniform performance gap across the Cinebench series rather than workload-specific variation.

Passmark integer math produces the narrowest multi-threaded gap. The Ultra 7 265F scores 138,078 versus 112,736 for the i9-14901E, an 18.4% lead. Passmark physics narrows the gap further, with 3,172 versus 3,041, only a 4.1% difference. Single-thread performance also shows a relatively modest separation: 4,750 versus 4,354 in Passmark single-thread, an 8.3% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265F.

Random string sorting shows a 37.3% gap, with 62,439 for the Ultra 7 265F against 39,138 for the i9-14901E. Data compression delivers 507,018 versus 288,777, a 43% difference. Prime number finding records 416 versus 189, a 54.6% lead. The overall average benchmark score tells the same story: 64,438 for the Core Ultra 7 265F versus 37,911 for the i9-14901E. The Ultra 7 265F sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the i9-14901E sits in the 86th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 265F wins every recorded benchmark in this comparison, so the use-case split follows the size of each advantage rather than a distribution of victories. The largest gaps concentrate in encryption, extended instructions, floating point math, and prime number finding, all workloads that scale with core count and modern execution resources. These are the areas where the Ultra 7 265F's 20 cores and 20 threads provide the most decisive benefit over the i9-14901E's 8 cores and 16 threads.

The narrowest margins appear in physics simulation and single-thread performance. Passmark physics shows only a 4.1% difference, suggesting that this workload does not fully exploit the Core Ultra 7 265F's additional cores. Single-thread performance, at 8.3% apart, reflects the higher boost clock of the i9-14901E, which reaches 5.60 GHz versus 5.30 GHz for the Ultra 7 265F. Despite the clock disadvantage, the newer architecture still manages a clear single-thread win.

Integer math presents an intermediate case. The 18.4% gap is smaller than the 50% plus margins seen in other multi-threaded tasks, indicating that integer workloads respond less dramatically to the core count difference. The remaining benchmarks, including Cinebench multi-core tests, data compression, and random string sorting, all land in the 37% to 43% range, representing the typical scaling behavior for fully threaded applications.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The Intel Core i9-14901E uses Raptor Lake architecture on Intel's 10 nm process, with a die size of 257 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F uses Arrow Lake architecture fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process, with a die size of 243 mm² and a transistor count of 17,800 million. The smaller die combined with the denser process node gives the Ultra 7 265F substantially more transistors in a slightly smaller package.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The i9-14901E provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7 265F provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The per-core cache allocations are larger on the Ultra 7 265F, but the shared L3 is smaller by 6 MB. The higher transistor count on the Ultra 7 265F supports the larger per-core cache structure despite the overall L3 reduction.

Memory support also diverges. The i9-14901E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 7 265F supports DDR5 only. The Ultra 7 265F records a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, a figure not listed for the i9-14901E. ECC memory support exists on the i9-14901E but is absent on the Ultra 7 265F. Both processors use dual-channel memory buses.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The i9-14901E provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 7 265F provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics situation separates the two clearly: the i9-14901E includes UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

The sockets are incompatible. The i9-14901E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 7 265F uses Intel Socket 1851. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported on either part.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts represent the largest specification gap. The i9-14901E has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads. The absence of Hyper-Threading on the Ultra 7 265F means its thread count equals its core count, unlike the i9-14901E which doubles threads over cores.

Base and boost clocks differ in both directions. The i9-14901E has a higher base clock at 2.80 GHz versus 2.40 GHz, and a higher boost clock at 5.60 GHz versus 5.30 GHz. Both processors carry a 65 TDP.

The release dates place them roughly six months apart. The i9-14901E launched on 2024-06-30, while the Ultra 7 265F launched on 2025-01-06. The Ultra 7 265F carries a launch MSRP of $379; no launch MSRP is recorded for the i9-14901E.

The part numbers differ as Q49ESRNJH for the i9-14901E and SRQCV for the Ultra 7 265F. Both are desktop market segment parts with active production status. The i9-14901E belongs to the Core 14th Gen series, while the Ultra 7 265F belongs to Core Ultra Series 2.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core i9-14901E has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How do the single-core Cinebench R23 scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265F scores 5,926 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the i9-14901E scores 3,635, a 38.7% advantage for the Ultra 7 265F.

Q: Does the i9-14901E support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the i9-14901E has ECC memory support. The Core Ultra 7 265F does not support ECC memory.

Q: What sockets do these processors use?

A: The i9-14901E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 265F uses Intel Socket 1851.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The i9-14901E includes UHD Graphics 770. The Core Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the Core Ultra 7 265F?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265F records a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The i9-14901E does not have a recorded memory bandwidth figure in the database.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The i9-14901E has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core Ultra 7 265F has 30 MB of shared L3 cache.