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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a decisive verdict: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T wins 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core i9-14901E takes only 4. The Ultra 7 265T's advantage is most pronounced in multi-threaded and compute-heavy workloads, where its 20-core design overwhelms the i9-14901E's 8 cores. Across the Cinebench suite, the Ultra 7 265T leads by a consistent 18.4% margin in every test, from Cinebench R15 multicore (3180 vs 2595) to Cinebench R23 multicore (31558 vs 25753). Single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern, with the Ultra 7 265T scoring 449 in R15 single-core versus 366 for the i9-14901E, and 4455 versus 3635 in R23 single-core.

The Passmark suite reveals an even wider gulf in several specialized workloads. Data encryption shows a 37.4% advantage for the Ultra 7 265T (29687 vs 18571), while extended instructions deliver a 39.7% gap (28609 vs 17249). Floating point math runs 37.5% faster on the Ultra 7 265T (129817 vs 81089), and prime number finding shows the largest single delta at 41.3% (322 vs 189). Data compression favors the Ultra 7 265T by 22% (370158 vs 288777), and multithread performance sits 18.3% higher (37084 vs 30298). Random string sorting also goes to the Ultra 7 265T, though by a narrower 11.9% (44400 vs 39138).

The i9-14901E does claim meaningful victories in specific areas. Integer math shows a 7.4% edge (112736 vs 104943), which indicates the i9-14901E's higher per-core clock throughput benefits certain integer-heavy operations. Physics scoring gives the i9-14901E a substantial 27.2% lead (3041 vs 2391), a notable reversal given the overall trend. Single-thread performance is essentially tied, with the i9-14901E edging ahead by just 0.4% (4354 vs 4338), showing that despite the Ultra 7 265T's Cinebench single-core wins, Passmark's measurement of single-thread capability finds the two nearly equal.

The average benchmark scores confirm the overall picture: the Ultra 7 265T posts an average of 47697 versus 37911 for the i9-14901E, a difference of roughly 26%. The percentile rankings place the Ultra 7 265T at the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the i9-14901E sits at the 86th.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies from Intel. The i9-14901E uses Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node, built by Intel itself, with a die size of 257 mm². The Ultra 7 265T moves to Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC, with a slightly smaller die at 243 mm² and a transistor count of 17,800 million. This process shrink and fab change is central to the Ultra 7 265T's efficiency and core-count advantage.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The i9-14901E offers 8 cores and 16 threads, indicating hyperthreading support. The Ultra 7 265T provides 20 cores and 20 threads, meaning it relies on physical cores without hyperthreading. This explains why the Ultra 7 265T dominates multi-threaded tests despite having fewer threads per core: raw core count wins in parallel workloads. Base clock speeds differ substantially, with the i9-14901E running at 2.80 GHz versus 1.50 GHz for the Ultra 7 265T. Boost clocks are closer: 5.60 GHz for the i9-14901E versus 5.30 GHz for the Ultra 7 265T. The i9-14901E's higher base clock helps explain its wins in integer math and physics, where single-core frequency matters more.

Cache hierarchies also reflect the different designs. The i9-14901E provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 265T offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 265T's larger per-core caches support its higher core count, while the i9-14901E's larger L3 pool benefits its 8-core configuration. Memory support differs as well: the i9-14901E accepts both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 265T is limited to DDR5. The Ultra 7 265T specifies a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, a figure the i9-14901E does not report. ECC memory is supported on the i9-14901E but not on the Ultra 7 265T.

PCIe lanes favor the Ultra 7 265T with Gen 5, 20 lanes (CPU only), versus Gen 5, 16 lanes for the i9-14901E. Integrated graphics differ: the i9-14901E uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 7 265T employs Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The sockets are incompatible: the i9-14901E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 7 265T requires Intel Socket 1851. Power envelopes show a major efficiency shift, with the i9-14901E rated at 65 W TDP versus 35 W for the Ultra 7 265T. The Ultra 7 265T delivers substantially higher multi-threaded performance while drawing far less power, a direct result of the 3 nm TSMC process. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Release dates place the i9-14901E on 2024-06-30 and the Ultra 7 265T on 2025-01-06.

Where Each One Wins

The Ultra 7 265T is the clear choice for multi-threaded productivity workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 31558 versus 25753 for the i9-14901E demonstrates a 22.5% advantage in rendering tasks. Data compression, encryption, and extended instruction workloads all favor the Ultra 7 265T by margins ranging from 22% to 39.7%, making it the stronger option for content creation, database work, and scientific computing. The 20-core design excels in parallel tasks that can scale across physical cores, and the 35 W TDP makes it suitable for systems where power efficiency matters.

The i9-14901E wins in narrowly defined niches. Its integer math score of 112736 versus 104943 indicates an advantage for integer-heavy calculations, possibly benefiting certain engineering or financial simulations. The 27.2% lead in physics scoring (3041 vs 2391) suggests the i9-14901E handles physics simulation workloads more effectively. Its single-thread Passmark score, while only 0.4% higher, shows that the i9-14901E can match the Ultra 7 265T in lightly threaded tasks despite its lower core count. The i9-14901E also supports DDR4 memory and ECC, which may be relevant for legacy systems or reliability-focused deployments.

Passmark multithread scoring gives the Ultra 7 265T a 37084 versus 30298 advantage, an 18.3% gap that aligns with the Cinebench multicore results. The Ultra 7 265T's wins span nearly every benchmark category, from floating point math (129817 vs 81089) to random string sorting (44400 vs 39138). The i9-14901E's wins, while fewer, are not trivial: a 7.4% integer math edge and a 27.2% physics edge represent real performance advantages in those specific domains.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T wins every multi-core benchmark in the database. It scores 31558 in Cinebench R23 multicore versus 25753 for the i9-14901E, a 18.4% lead. Passmark multithread shows 37084 versus 30298, also an 18.3% advantage.

Q: How do the single-core performances compare?

A: The Ultra 7 265T leads in Cinebench single-core tests, scoring 4455 in R23 single-core versus 3635 for the i9-14901E, an 18.4% gap. However, Passmark single-thread scoring shows the i9-14901E slightly ahead at 4354 versus 4338, a 0.4% difference.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The i9-14901E has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 7 265T has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Ultra 7 265T does not use hyperthreading, relying on physical cores only.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory?

A: No. The i9-14901E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 265T supports DDR5 only. The Ultra 7 265T specifies 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth. The i9-14901E supports ECC memory; the Ultra 7 265T does not.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The i9-14901E boosts to 5.60 GHz, while the Ultra 7 265T boosts to 5.30 GHz. The i9-14901E also has a higher base clock at 2.80 GHz versus 1.50 GHz for the Ultra 7 265T.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The i9-14901E has a TDP of 65 W, while the Ultra 7 265T has a TDP of 35 W. The Ultra 7 265T delivers higher multi-core performance while drawing less power.

The Verdict

The data points decisively to the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T as the superior processor for most workloads. It wins 13 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, holds a higher average benchmark score (47697 vs 37911), and ranks at the 90th percentile of all CPUs versus the 86th percentile for the i9-14901E. Its 20-core configuration delivers consistent 18.4% advantages across all Cinebench tests and even larger margins in specialized Passmark workloads like encryption, extended instructions, and floating point math. The 35 W TDP makes it substantially more power-efficient while outperforming the 65 W i9-14901E in almost every category.

The i9-14901E is not without merit. Its 7.4% integer math advantage and 27.2% physics lead indicate that specific workloads, particularly those relying on integer operations or physics simulation, may prefer the i9-14901E. Its higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz and base clock of 2.80 GHz give it a per-core frequency advantage that shows up in the near-tie Passmark single-thread score. The i9-14901E also offers DDR4 memory support and ECC functionality, features absent from the Ultra 7 265T.

For users prioritizing multi-threaded rendering, data processing, encryption, or any workload that scales across cores, the Ultra 7 265T is the clear choice based on benchmark evidence. For those with integer-heavy or physics-focused workloads, or who require ECC memory or DDR4 compatibility, the i9-14901E offers specific advantages. The Ultra 7 265T's launch MSRP is $384. The overall data, however, favors the Ultra 7 265T for general and professional use.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Cores | 8 | 20 |

| Threads | 16 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 2.80 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.60 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 35 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Arrow Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not reported | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 257 mm² | 243 mm² |

| 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 reported | 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 64EU |

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

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | Q49ESRNJH | SRQCS |