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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX, which wins 16 of the 17 direct benchmark comparisons. The Intel Core i9-14901E manages only a single win, and that by the narrowest margin in the entire comparison.

The largest gaps appear in PassMark extended instructions, where the Core Ultra 7 265HX scores 40,741 against 17,249 for the Core i9-14901E, a 57.7% advantage. Data encryption shows a 53% lead (39,472 versus 18,571), and prime number finding follows closely behind at 53.4% (406 versus 189). These workloads point to the Core Ultra 7 265HX being substantially stronger in cryptography and complex instruction handling.

Cinebench results reinforce the same pattern. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 265HX delivers 40,642 points, while the Core i9-14901E records 25,753, a 36.6% difference. Single-core results in the same test show 5,737 versus 3,635, again a 36.6% gap. The consistency of this delta across R15, R20, and R23, both single and multi-core variants, indicates a fundamental performance tier difference rather than workload-specific behavior.

PassMark multithread scoring shows 47,985 for the Core Ultra 7 265HX against 30,298 for the Core i9-14901E, a 36.9% lead. Floating point math follows at 49.8% (161,605 versus 81,089), and random string sorting at 37.3% (62,458 versus 39,138). Data compression demonstrates the Core Ultra 7 265HX delivering 511,817 against 288,777, a 43.6% advantage.

Integer math presents the smallest multi-threaded gap, with the Core Ultra 7 265HX scoring 126,954 versus 112,736, an 11.2% lead. PassMark single-thread scoring shows a modest 3.2% edge for the Core Ultra 7 265HX (4,500 versus 4,354). The single exception to the Core Ultra 7 265HX sweep is PassMark physics, where the Core i9-14901E posts 3,041 against 2,978, a 2.1% win.

Average benchmark scores reflect the overall picture: the Core Ultra 7 265HX averages 63,173, whereas the Core i9-14901E averages 37,911. The Core Ultra 7 265HX sits in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, while the Core i9-14901E sits in the 86th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 265HX wins across every Cinebench iteration, all PassMark math workloads, all data processing tests, and both single-thread measurements. Its dominance in extended instructions, encryption, compression, and floating point math suggests strong performance in scientific computing, media encoding, and data-heavy server tasks. The 57.7% lead in extended instructions and 53% lead in encryption indicate the Arrow Lake architecture handles AVX-style and cryptographic workloads with particular efficiency.

The Core i9-14901E wins only PassMark physics, by 2.1%. This is a narrow margin, but it is the only recorded case where the Raptor Lake design outperforms the newer part. Physics simulation workloads, which often rely on predictable integer-heavy paths, appear to favor the older architecture slightly.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Core Ultra 7 265HX leads by 3.2% in PassMark single-thread and by 36.7% in Cinebench R15 single-core. The Cinebench single-core gap is much larger than the PassMark gap, suggesting that short, bursty workloads benefit disproportionately from the Core Ultra 7 265HX.

Architecture Differences

The Core i9-14901E uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R variant, built on Intel's 10 nm process with a 257 mm² die. The Core Ultra 7 265HX uses Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-HX, built on TSMC's 3 nm process with a 243 mm² die. The Core Ultra 7 265HX integrates 17,800 million transistors; the Core i9-14901E has no transistor count recorded in the database.

Core configuration differs substantially. The Core i9-14901E has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265HX has 20 cores and 20 threads. The thread count being equal to core count on the Core Ultra 7 265HX indicates a different threading model, likely relying on a heterogeneous core arrangement where not all cores support simultaneous multithreading.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core i9-14901E provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 265HX provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The per-core L1 and L2 figures on the Core Ultra 7 265HX are larger, while total L3 is smaller.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core i9-14901E uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra 7 265HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The Core Ultra 7 265HX also supports DDR5 memory only, whereas the Core i9-14901E supports both DDR4 and DDR5. ECC memory is supported on the Core i9-14901E but not on the Core Ultra 7 265HX.

The process node difference (10 nm versus 3 nm) and foundry difference (Intel versus TSMC) explain part of the performance gap, as does the transistor count of 17,800 million on the Core Ultra 7 265HX.

Specification Differences

Clock speeds differ in both directions. The Core i9-14901E has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 265HX has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The Core i9-14901E has the higher clocks in both cases, yet still loses the benchmark comparison, indicating the architectural efficiency of Arrow Lake outweighs raw clock speed.

Thermal design power is 65 W for the Core i9-14901E and 55 W for the Core Ultra 7 265HX. The Core Ultra 7 265HX delivers higher performance at a lower TDP, a direct indicator of generation-over-generation efficiency improvement.

Socket and market segment differ fundamentally. The Core i9-14901E targets desktop with Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 265HX targets mobile with Intel BGA 2114. PCIe lane counts also differ: the Core i9-14901E has Gen 5, 16 lanes (CPU only), and the Core Ultra 7 265HX has Gen 5, 20 lanes (CPU only).

Memory bandwidth is recorded for the Core Ultra 7 265HX at 102.4 GB/s, while no figure is listed for the Core i9-14901E. The multiplier is locked on the Core i9-14901E but unlocked on the Core Ultra 7 265HX. Release dates differ by about six months, with the Core i9-14901E released in mid-2024 and the Core Ultra 7 265HX released in early 2025.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

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

Q: What is the single-core performance difference in Cinebench R23?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265HX scores 5,737 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Core i9-14901E scores 3,635. The Core Ultra 7 265HX leads by 36.6%.

Q: Does the Core i9-14901E win any benchmark comparison?

A: Yes, the Core i9-14901E wins PassMark physics with a score of 3,041 against 2,978, a 2.1% advantage. This is its only win out of 17 recorded comparisons.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX does not support ECC memory.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core i9-14901E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Core Ultra 7 265HX supports DDR5 only, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265HX has an average benchmark score of 63,173, placing it in the 93rd percentile. The Core i9-14901E has an average benchmark score of 37,911, placing it in the 86th percentile.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear choice toward the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX for nearly all workloads. It wins 16 of 17 comparisons, including every Cinebench test, every PassMark math workload, and all data processing tests. The 57.7% lead in extended instructions and the 53% lead in data encryption mark it as the stronger option for computation-heavy applications. Its 93rd percentile ranking versus the 86th percentile of the Core i9-14901E confirms the overall positioning.

The Core i9-14901E retains a narrow 2.1% win in PassMark physics, which is the only workload where it should be preferred. Its higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz versus 5.30 GHz does not translate into broader benchmark success, and its 65 W TDP is higher than the 55 W TDP of the Core Ultra 7 265HX while delivering less performance.

The Core Ultra 7 265HX also offers architectural advantages including a 3 nm TSMC process, 17,800 million transistors, and a larger per-core cache allocation. The Core i9-14901E offers ECC memory support and DDR4 compatibility, which may matter in specific desktop server or legacy environments. For general processing, rendering, encryption, and math workloads, the recorded data consistently favors the Core Ultra 7 265HX.