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

The Intel Core i9-14901E and Intel Core Ultra 7 265H represent two distinct approaches to modern x86 processing. The Core i9-14901E is a Raptor Lake desktop part with a 65 W TDP, built for sustained high-frequency workloads. The Core Ultra 7 265H is an Arrow Lake mobile processor with a 28 W TDP, fabricated on a 3 nm TSMC process, and prioritizes efficiency and throughput across a larger core count. Benchmark data shows the Ultra 7 265H takes the majority of wins, 10 of 17 recorded tests, while the i9-14901E secures 7. The overall average benchmark score favors the Ultra 7 265H at 41621, compared to 37911 for the i9-14901E, placing the mobile chip in the 88th percentile of all CPUs versus the 86th percentile for the desktop chip. The head-to-head results are not uniform, and the nature of the workload determines which processor delivers the higher score.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H records an average benchmark score of 41621, while the Intel Core i9-14901E records 37911. The Ultra 7 265H also holds a higher percentile rank at 88, compared to 86 for the i9-14901E.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core i9-14901E has 8 cores and 16 threads. Both processors offer the same thread count, but the Ultra 7 265H achieves this with twice the physical core count.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The i9-14901E holds the advantage in both metrics.

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E wins decisively with a score of 3635, which is 74.8% higher than the Ultra 7 265H score of 2080.

Q: Which processor wins in PassMark multithread?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H wins with a score of 34027, which is 11% higher than the i9-14901E score of 30298.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i9-14901E and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H list ECC memory support as a feature.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clear split between high-frequency desktop workloads and high-throughput mobile workloads. The Intel Core i9-14901E wins in scenarios that depend on raw clock speed and per-core efficiency. Its most dominant victories come in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it leads by 74.8%, and Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it leads by 29.2%. It also wins in PassMark integer math by 31.9% and PassMark physics by 21.8%. These results indicate a strong fit for applications that rely on deep single-thread performance and integer processing.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H wins in a broader range of tasks, particularly those that scale with core count and modern instruction efficiency. It takes Cinebench R15 multi-core by 13.2% and Cinebench R20 multi-core by 10.8%. In PassMark tests, it wins data compression by 13.7%, data encryption by 28.6%, extended instructions by 35.7%, find prime numbers by 43.6%, floating point math by 25.7%, multithread by 11%, and random string sorting by 3.9%. The Ultra 7 265H also wins Cinebench R20 single-core by 10.9%, a notable result given the i9-14901E higher boost clock.

The wins for the Ultra 7 265H in encryption and extended instructions point to a newer architecture with better support for specialized operations. The i9-14901E counters in physics and integer math, areas where its higher clocks and Raptor Lake design remain competitive. The PassMark single-thread scores are nearly identical, with the i9-14901E ahead by only 0.5%, suggesting that the two processors are comparable in general single-thread performance despite the large gap in Cinebench R23 single-core.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Intel Core i9-14901E uses Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-R codename, and belongs to the Core 14th Gen series. It is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel with a die size of 257 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-H, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. It is fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. This process advantage gives the Ultra 7 265H a significantly smaller transistor geometry, which contributes to its lower 28 W TDP compared to the 65 W TDP of the i9-14901E.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The i9-14901E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7 265H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7 265H offers more per-core cache, which helps its 16 physical cores, while the i9-14901E provides a larger shared L3 pool for its 8 cores.

Memory support also differs. The i9-14901E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Ultra 7 265H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, also in a dual-channel configuration, and records a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The i9-14901E does not have a recorded memory bandwidth figure in the database. The i9-14901E uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform, while the Ultra 7 265H uses Intel BGA 2049, confirming the desktop versus mobile split.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The i9-14901E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Ultra 7 265H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes from the CPU. Both support ECC memory. Integrated graphics differ, with the i9-14901E using UHD Graphics 770 and the Ultra 7 265H using Arc Graphics 140T. The i9-14901E was released on 2024-06-30, while the Ultra 7 265H was released on 2025-01-12.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show a distinct separation between the two parts. The i9-14901E runs at a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The Ultra 7 265H runs at a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The i9-14901E has a TDP of 65 W, while the Ultra 7 265H has a TDP of 28 W. This makes the Ultra 7 265H the more power-efficient part by design.

Core and thread counts differ in configuration. The i9-14901E has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ultra 7 265H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Both processors are locked, with no unlocked multiplier. The i9-14901E has a part number of Q49ESRNJH, and the Ultra 7 265H has a part number of SRQAQ.

The process node is a major differentiator. The i9-14901E uses a 10 nm process at Intel, and the Ultra 7 265H uses a 3 nm process at TSMC. The i9-14901E has a die size of 257 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Ultra 7 265H. Neither processor has recorded transistor counts or v-cache data. The market segments are explicit: the i9-14901E is a Desktop processor, and the Ultra 7 265H is a Mobile processor. Both are listed as Active in production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results show the most extreme swings between the two processors. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i9-14901E scores 25753 against 19940 for the Ultra 7 265H, a 29.2% advantage. This is the largest multi-core win for the i9-14901E and contradicts the trend in the other multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 7 265H wins with 2989 against 2595, a 13.2% lead. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Ultra 7 265H wins with 12131 against 10816, a 10.8% lead.

Single-core Cinebench results are also inconsistent across versions. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the i9-14901E wins with 366 against 307, a 19.2% lead. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Ultra 7 265H wins with 1712 against 1526, a 10.9% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i9-14901E wins with 3635 against 2080, a massive 74.8% lead. The R23 single-core gap is the single largest delta in the entire head-to-head dataset.

PassMark tests show a consistent pattern of Ultra 7 265H dominance in most workloads. The largest PassMark win for the Ultra 7 265H is in find prime numbers, where it scores 335 against 189, a 43.6% lead. Extended instructions follow with a 35.7% lead, scoring 26805 against 17249. Data encryption shows a 28.6% lead, scoring 26005 against 18571. Floating point math shows a 25.7% lead, scoring 109123 against 81089. Data compression shows a 13.7% lead, scoring 334711 against 288777. Random string sorting shows a 3.9% lead, scoring 40742 against 39138.

The i9-14901E wins the remaining PassMark tests. Integer math goes to the i9-14901E with 112736 against 85479, a 31.9% lead. Physics goes to the i9-14901E with 3041 against 2497, a 21.8% lead. PassMark multithread goes to the Ultra 7 265H with 34027 against 30298, an 11% lead. PassMark single-thread goes to the i9-14901E with 4354 against 4334, a narrow 0.5% lead. The single-thread result appears twice in the dataset with identical scores and deltas.

The win count reflects the distribution. The Ultra 7 265H wins 10 tests, and the i9-14901E wins 7 tests. The average benchmark score for the Ultra 7 265H is 41621, which places it 3710 points ahead of the i9-14901E average of 37911. The nearest rival for the i9-14901E is the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 with an average score of 37904 and a delta of 0%. The nearest rival for the Ultra 7 265H is the Intel Core 7 251TE with an average score of 41650 and a delta of -0.1%.

The Verdict

The data directs different buyers to different processors. The Intel Core i9-14901E is the choice for workloads that prize single-thread speed and integer throughput. Its 5.60 GHz boost clock and 74.8% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core make it the stronger option for applications that cannot use many cores effectively. The 29.2% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core is an outlier in the multi-core tests but still a real result that favors the desktop part in that specific benchmark. The 31.9% lead in integer math and 21.8% lead in physics reinforce the profile of a high-frequency desktop CPU.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H is the choice for efficiency and broad workload coverage. Its 28 W TDP and 3 nm process allow it to deliver competitive or superior performance across most PassMark tests while using less power. The 43.6% lead in find prime numbers, 35.7% lead in extended instructions, and 28.6% lead in data encryption indicate architectural improvements in the Arrow Lake design. The 16 physical cores provide a solid foundation for multi-threaded tasks, as shown by wins in Cinebench R15, Cinebench R20, and PassMark multithread.

The overall average benchmark score favors the Ultra 7 265H, 41621 against 37911. The percentile ranking also favors the Ultra 7 265H, 88 against 86. For a desktop user with access to a 65 W socket, the i9-14901E offers the highest single-thread scores and a strong showing in integer work. For a mobile user or anyone constrained by power, the Ultra 7 265H delivers more wins across the full benchmark suite and a higher overall average. The choice comes down to the platform and the workload mix. The data shows two capable processors, each with a clear set of strengths, and neither dominates across all recorded tests.