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

The Verdict

The recorded data clearly separates these two desktop processors. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K dominates the comparison, winning 16 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. Its average benchmark score of 70879 places it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Core i9-14901E averages 37911 and sits in the 86th percentile.

The Core Ultra 7 265K delivers substantially higher throughput across nearly every measured workload. Multi-threaded performance shows the largest gaps, with the 265K scoring 5020 versus 2595 in Cinebench R15 multicore, a 48.3% advantage. The Core i9-14901E claims only a single victory: Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 3635 against 2020 for the 265K, an 80% lead. That one result indicates a notable single-thread capability in the older chip, but it does not offset the 265K's overwhelming multi-threaded dominance.

The data suggests the Core Ultra 7 265K is the appropriate choice for users whose workloads scale across many cores, including rendering, data compression, encryption, and floating-point math. The Core i9-14901E, with its lower core count and smaller cache pool, suits scenarios where the single-threaded performance in that specific Cinebench R23 test is the priority, though its other single-thread scores trail the 265K.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use fundamentally different designs. The Core i9-14901E belongs to the Core 14th Gen series, built on Raptor Lake architecture with a 10 nm process node from Intel. It contains 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.80 GHz and boost clock of 5.60 GHz. Its die size is 257 mm², and it uses the Intel Socket 1700.

The Core Ultra 7 265K comes from the Core Ultra Series 2, based on Arrow Lake architecture. It uses a 3 nm process node manufactured by TSMC, a significant shift from Intel's own foundry. The 265K packs 20 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and boost clock of 5.50 GHz. Its die is smaller at 243 mm², and it contains 17,800 million transistors. It fits the Intel Socket 1851.

Cache organization also differs. The 14901E provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The 265K offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, but only 30 MB of shared L3. Memory support diverges as well: the 14901E accepts both DDR4 and DDR5, while the 265K supports DDR5 only. The 265K lists a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, a figure absent for the 14901E. PCIe connectivity favors the 265K with Gen 5 and 20 CPU lanes versus Gen 5 and 16 lanes for the 14901E. Integrated graphics differ, with the 14901E using UHD Graphics 770 and the 265K using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Both support ECC memory. The 265K has an unlocked multiplier; the 14901E does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 7 265K wins decisively in multi-threaded tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 5020 against 2595, a 48.3% gap. The R20 multicore result repeats the pattern: 20918 versus 10816, another 48.3% difference. Cinebench R23 multicore shows a narrower but still large margin: 35850 versus 25753, a 28.2% lead for the 265K. PassMark multithread reinforces the trend, with 58594 versus 30298, a 48.3% advantage.

Single-thread results are more mixed. The 265K wins Cinebench R15 single-core with 708 versus 366, a 48.3% margin. It also leads Cinebench R20 single-core, 2953 versus 1526, again 48.3%. However, Cinebench R23 single-core is where the 14901E takes its only win, scoring 3635 against 2020 for the 265K, an 80% advantage. This anomaly suggests the R23 single-core test responds differently to the 14901E's higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz versus 5.50 GHz, or its Raptor Lake microarchitecture.

PassMark single-thread results show the 265K ahead, 4928 versus 4354, an 11.6% edge. The 265K also wins PassMark physics, 3731 versus 3041, an 18.5% margin. In specialized workloads, the 265K's advantages are stark. Data compression shows 665554 versus 288777, a 56.6% lead. Data encryption records 48246 versus 18571, a 61.5% gap. Extended instructions see 54333 versus 17249, a 68.3% difference. Floating-point math scores 189629 versus 81089, a 57.2% lead. Integer math shows a smaller gap: 143242 versus 112736, 21.3%. Random string sorting delivers 79752 versus 39138, a 50.9% margin. Find prime numbers records 491 versus 189, a 61.5% gap.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K averages 70879, versus 37911 for the Intel Core i9-14901E.

Q: In which benchmark does the Core i9-14901E outperform the Core Ultra 7 265K?

A: The 14901E wins only Cinebench R23 single-core, scoring 3635 versus 2020, an 80% margin.

Q: How do the core counts differ between the two chips?

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

Q: What process nodes do the two processors use?

A: The 14901E uses Intel's 10 nm process. The 265K uses TSMC's 3 nm process.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: Only the Intel Core i9-14901E supports DDR4, while the Core Ultra 7 265K supports DDR5 exclusively.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Core Ultra 7 265K?

A: The launch MSRP is $394. The database does not record a launch MSRP for the 14901E.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 265K is the clear winner for multi-threaded and throughput-intensive tasks. Its 20 cores and 20 threads deliver 48.3% higher scores in Cinebench R15 and R20 multicore, and 28.2% higher in R23 multicore. Data compression, encryption, extended instructions, floating-point math, and random string sorting all show the 265K leading by margins from 50.9% to 68.3%. Integer math and physics also favor the 265K, though by smaller margins of 21.3% and 18.5% respectively. The 265K's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and higher PCIe lane count (20 versus 16) support these throughput advantages. Its percentile ranking of 94 versus 86 for the 14901E confirms its overall standing.

The Core i9-14901E wins only in Cinebench R23 single-core, with an 80% margin. This result points to a specific strength in that workload, likely tied to its 5.60 GHz boost clock and Raptor Lake design. However, the 14901E loses the other single-thread tests: R15 single-core by 48.3%, R20 single-core by 48.3%, and PassMark single-thread by 11.6%. The 14901E also supports DDR4 memory, which could make it compatible with older platforms, but the data does not quantify any performance benefit from that support.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The 14901E has 8 cores and 16 threads; the 265K has 20 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are 2.80 GHz for the 14901E and 3.90 GHz for the 265K. Boost clocks are close: 5.60 GHz versus 5.50 GHz. TDP differs substantially: 65 for the 14901E versus 125 for the 265K. Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1700 for the 14901E, Intel Socket 1851 for the 265K. Architecture changes from Raptor Lake to Arrow Lake, with process nodes of 10 nm (Intel) versus 3 nm (TSMC). Die size is 257 mm² versus 243 mm². Transistor count is listed only for the 265K at 17,800 million.

Cache configurations differ per core and in total L3: the 14901E has 80 KB L1, 2 MB L2, and 36 MB shared L3; the 265K has 192 KB L1, 3 MB L2, and 30 MB shared L3. Memory support: the 14901E accepts DDR4 and DDR5, while the 265K accepts DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth is recorded only for the 265K at 102.4 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe: the 14901E has Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes; the 265K has Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 770 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The 265K has an unlocked multiplier; the 14901E does not. Release dates differ: 2024-06-30 for the 14901E versus 2024-10-23 for the 265K. The 265K has a launch MSRP of $394; no MSRP is recorded for the 14901E.