Intel Core i9-14901E vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits sharply between these two Intel parts. The Intel Core i9-14901E wins 16 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V takes a single victory. That one win comes in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 9 288V scores 195 against 189 for the i9-14901E, a 3.1% advantage. This narrow result indicates the Lunar Lake part has a slight edge in a specific integer workload pattern, but it does not translate into broader success.

The i9-14901E dominates in every multi-threaded test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 25753 versus 10178 for the Ultra 9 288V, a 153% lead. The PassMark multithread test shows a 52.9% gap, with scores of 30298 and 19810 respectively. These results confirm the desktop processor's strength when all cores are active. The Ultra 9 288V, with its 8 cores and 8 threads, cannot match the 16 threads of the i9-14901E in parallel workloads.

Single-thread performance tells a similar but less extreme story. The i9-14901E leads in Cinebench R23 single-core by 86.4%, scoring 3635 versus 1950. In PassMark single-thread, the margin shrinks to 1.9%, with scores of 4354 and 4274. This near tie in PassMark's single-thread test suggests the Ultra 9 288V has competitive per-core efficiency, but the gap widens in Cinebench's rendering workload. The data shows the i9-14901E is the choice for compute-heavy tasks, while the Ultra 9 288V has a niche in prime number calculations.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The i9-14901E uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R variant, built on a 10 nm process node at Intel's foundry. The Ultra 9 288V uses Lunar Lake architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm node at TSMC. This process difference explains why the Ultra 9 288V operates at a lower 30 W TDP while the i9-14901E has a 65 W TDP.

Core configurations differ in threading. Both have 8 physical cores, but the i9-14901E supports 16 threads through Hyper-Threading, while the Ultra 9 288V has 8 threads with no hyper-threading. Cache layout also varies. The i9-14901E has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9 288V has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and only 12 MB shared L3. The larger L3 on the desktop part helps in repeated data access patterns.

Memory support diverges completely. The i9-14901E supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode, while the Ultra 9 288V uses LPDDR5X with a recorded memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. The desktop chip also supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the mobile part. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the i9-14901E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra 9 288V offers Gen 5 with only 4 lanes.

Integrated graphics separate the two as well. The i9-14901E uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 9 288V uses Arc 140V. The market segments reflect these choices: the i9-14901E targets desktop sockets (Intel Socket 1700), and the Ultra 9 288V is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2833. Release dates differ by about three months, with the i9-14901E appearing in the database on 2024-06-30 and the Ultra 9 288V on 2024-09-23.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single margin in the head-to-head data belongs to Cinebench R23 multi-core. The i9-14901E scores 25753, which is 153% higher than the Ultra 9 288V's 10178. This is the defining result of the comparison. The desktop chip's 16 threads and 36 MB L3 cache enable sustained rendering performance that the mobile part cannot approach.

PassMark integer math shows a similar scale of difference. The i9-14901E scores 112736 versus 44019 for the Ultra 9 288V, a 156.1% lead. This workload benefits from the higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz on the i9-14901E compared to 5.10 GHz on the Ultra 9 288V. The desktop part also leads in PassMark physics by 85.8%, scoring 3041 against 1637.

Cinebench R20 results follow the trend. Multi-core shows a 53% lead for the i9-14901E (10816 versus 7069), and single-core shows a 53.1% lead (1526 versus 997). Cinebench R15 multi-core has a 63.9% gap (2595 versus 1583), while R15 single-core shows 21.4% (366 versus 301.5). These Cinebench results indicate the i9-14901E wins both parallel and serial rendering tasks, though the single-core margins vary by test version.

PassMark data compression favors the i9-14901E by 54.8%, with scores of 288777 and 186521. Data encryption shows a 31.3% lead (18571 versus 14141). Floating point math goes to the i9-14901E by 36.2% (81089 versus 59536). Random string sorting gives the desktop part a 73% edge (39138 versus 22622). Extended instructions are closer, with only a 10.5% gap (17249 versus 15613).

The closest contest appears in PassMark single-thread, where the i9-14901E leads by just 1.9% (4354 versus 4274). This near parity suggests that for lightly threaded applications, the Ultra 9 288V's higher base clock of 3.30 GHz and efficient Lunar Lake cores nearly match the i9-14901E's 2.80 GHz base with 5.60 GHz boost. The only reverse result is the find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 9 288V wins by 3.1%.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The i9-14901E has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The Ultra 9 288V has a higher base clock of 3.30 GHz but a lower boost clock of 5.10 GHz. TDP values differ by 35 W: 65 W for the desktop part versus 30 W for the mobile part.

Thread count is the most functional difference. The i9-14901E has 16 threads, the Ultra 9 288V has 8. Both have 8 cores, so the i9-14901E's threading advantage doubles its logical processor count. The process node shifts from 10 nm on Intel's foundry to 3 nm at TSMC. Die size is recorded for the i9-14901E at 257 mm², while no die size is listed for the Ultra 9 288V.

Cache specifications differ in every level. L1 cache is 80 KB per core on the i9-14901E versus 192 KB per core on the Ultra 9 288V. L2 cache is 2 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core. L3 cache is 36 MB shared versus 12 MB shared. The i9-14901E has more total L3, but the Ultra 9 288V has larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations.

Memory support is exclusive to each platform. The i9-14901E accepts DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 288V only supports LPDDR5X. The mobile part has a recorded memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s; the desktop part has no bandwidth figure in the database. ECC memory is supported on the i9-14901E but not on the Ultra 9 288V. PCIe lanes differ from 16 on the desktop part to 4 on the mobile part.

The integrated graphics differ by model: UHD Graphics 770 versus Arc 140V. The socket types are incompatible: Intel Socket 1700 for desktop versus Intel BGA 2833 for mobile. Market segments are listed as Desktop and Mobile respectively. Both parts have locked multipliers and are marked as Active in production.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E has 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has 8 threads. Both have 8 physical cores.

Q: What is the cache difference between the two?

A: The i9-14901E has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9 288V has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the Ultra 9 288V?

A: The Ultra 9 288V has a recorded memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. The i9-14901E has no memory bandwidth figure in the database.

Q: How do the processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The i9-14901E scores 25753, which is 153% higher than the Ultra 9 288V's score of 10178.

Q: In what test does the Ultra 9 288V win?

A: The Ultra 9 288V wins the PassMark find prime numbers test, scoring 195 versus 189 for the i9-14901E, a 3.1% advantage.

The Verdict

The benchmark data gives a clear answer for users prioritizing raw compute. The Intel Core i9-14901E wins 16 of 17 tests, with its largest margins in multi-threaded workloads. It delivers 153% more performance in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 156.1% more in PassMark integer math. The desktop part also holds a 86.4% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core, showing strength beyond parallel tasks. Its 16 threads, 36 MB L3 cache, and 5.60 GHz boost clock make it suitable for rendering, encryption, sorting, and physics simulations.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is not without merit. Its single win in find prime numbers demonstrates a specific algorithmic advantage. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4274 is only 1.9% behind the i9-14901E, indicating competitive per-core performance. The 30 W TDP and 3 nm process node suggest efficiency that the 65 W desktop part cannot match, though no power efficiency benchmarks are recorded in the database. The mobile part also uses LPDDR5X with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth, which may benefit certain memory-bound tasks.

For a desktop system with socket 1700 and access to DDR4 or DDR5, the i9-14901E is the stronger performer across nearly all measured categories. For a mobile platform with BGA 2833 and LPDDR5X, the Ultra 9 288V is the only option of the two, and it holds its own in single-thread tests. The percentile ranking reflects the overall gap: the i9-14901E sits at the 86th percentile against all CPUs, while the Ultra 9 288V sits at the 76th percentile. Average benchmark scores confirm the separation, with 37911 for the desktop part and 23219 for the mobile part. Users needing maximum throughput should select the i9-14901E; users constrained to a mobile form factor will find the Ultra 9 288V offers a narrow but real advantage in prime number workloads.