Intel Core i9-14901KE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the Intel Core i9-14901KE against the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F. However, the recorded data for the Core Ultra 7 265F provides a full set of measurements across Cinebench and Passmark workloads, while the Core i9-14901KE has no benchmark scores listed. This means the comparison relies entirely on the available measurements for the Ultra 7 265F and the architectural specifications of both processors.

The Core Ultra 7 265F delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 41,980 and a single-core score of 5,926. In Cinebench R20, it records 17,631 multi-core and 2,488 single-core. The R15 results show 4,231 multi-core and 597 single-core. These figures place the processor at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 64,438.

Passmark results for the Core Ultra 7 265F show a multi-thread score of 49,410 and a single-thread score of 4,750. Integer math reaches 138,078, floating-point math reaches 173,855, and extended instructions score 39,235. Data compression scores 507,018, data encryption scores 39,468, and random string sorting scores 62,439. Physics simulation records 3,172, while finding prime numbers scores 416.

The nearest rivals in the database for the Core Ultra 7 265F include the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 with an average score of 64,640, which is 0.3% higher. The AMD EPYC 7343 scores 64,202, which is 0.4% lower. The AMD EPYC 4464P scores 64,823, which is 0.6% higher. The Intel Core i9-13900KS scores 64,051, which is 0.6% lower. These margins are narrow, indicating that the Core Ultra 7 265F sits in a tightly contested performance band.

Since the Core i9-14901KE has no benchmark records, the head-to-head comparison must be framed by what the data does show: the Core Ultra 7 265F has measurable scores across every major workload category, while the Core i9-14901KE only has specification-level data. This asymmetry means the numeric wins all belong to the Core Ultra 7 265F by default in the recorded database, but the absence of scores for the i9-14901KE prevents a direct performance delta calculation.

The Core Ultra 7 265F achieves its multi-thread performance with 20 cores and 20 threads, a 65 W TDP, and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The Core i9-14901KE uses 8 cores and 16 threads, a 125 W TDP, and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. The higher boost clock on the i9-14901KE suggests potential single-thread strength, but no benchmark data confirms this. The recorded data only confirms the Ultra 7 265F's scores.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear split. For workloads that depend on multi-threaded throughput, the Core Ultra 7 265F has recorded scores that place it at the 93rd percentile. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 41,980 and Passmark multi-thread score of 49,410 reflect a processor designed for parallel tasks. The Core i9-14901KE has no recorded scores, so its multi-thread capability cannot be quantified from the database.

For single-thread performance, the Core Ultra 7 265F records a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5,926 and a Passmark single-thread score of 4,750. The Core i9-14901KE has a higher boost clock at 5.80 GHz compared to 5.30 GHz, which could indicate an advantage in lightly threaded workloads, but the database offers no measurement to support this. The only verifiable numbers favor the Core Ultra 7 265F.

The Core Ultra 7 265F also holds advantages in efficiency metrics. Its 65 W TDP is lower than the 125 W TDP of the Core i9-14901KE. The Core Ultra 7 265F uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC, while the Core i9-14901KE uses a 10 nm node from Intel. These specifications suggest the Ultra 7 265F draws less power per unit of work, but again, no power measurements exist in the database.

The Core Ultra 7 265F has a launch MSRP of $379. This figure appears once in this analysis and nothing more can be said about cost.

The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward: the Core Ultra 7 265F is the only processor in this comparison with benchmark scores, and those scores are strong. The Core i9-14901KE remains an unmeasured entry with a higher clock speed and a smaller core count. Until benchmark data for the i9-14901KE appears in the database, the Core Ultra 7 265F holds every measurable advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 265F wins in every category where the database has measurements. Multi-threaded rendering, simulation, and compression tasks all show strong results. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 41,980 and the Passmark data compression score of 507,018 indicate a processor that handles parallel workloads efficiently. The 20-core, 20-thread configuration with a 3 nm process node supports this profile.

Single-thread performance also favors the Core Ultra 7 265F in the recorded data. A Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5,926 and a Passmark single-thread score of 4,750 show competitive per-core throughput. The boost clock of 5.30 GHz is lower than the i9-14901KE's 5.80 GHz, but the absence of i9-14901KE benchmark scores means the higher clock has no measurable impact in the database.

The Core i9-14901KE wins only on paper specifications. Its 5.80 GHz boost clock is higher. Its 8 cores and 16 threads suggest a different workload profile, one that relies on high per-core clocks rather than core count. The 36 MB shared L3 cache is larger than the 30 MB shared L3 cache on the Core Ultra 7 265F. The i9-14901KE also supports DDR4 memory in addition to DDR5, while the Ultra 7 265F supports DDR5 only. The i9-14901KE includes integrated graphics with UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics.

The Core Ultra 7 265F wins on memory bandwidth specification, with a recorded 102.4 GB/s, while the i9-14901KE has no memory bandwidth figure listed. The Ultra 7 265F also provides more PCIe lanes, with 20 Gen 5 lanes compared to 16 Gen 5 lanes on the i9-14901KE.

The use-case split follows the data. For multi-threaded production workloads, the Core Ultra 7 265F has recorded scores that confirm its capability. For single-thread tasks where clock speed matters, the i9-14901KE has a specification advantage but no measurement to confirm it.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Core i9-14901KE have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The database lists no benchmarks for the Core i9-14901KE. Its average benchmark score is 0 and it has no nearest rivals listed.

Q: What is the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265F records a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 41,980.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 7 265F compare to its closest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 has an average score of 64,640, which is 0.3% higher than the Core Ultra 7 265F's average score of 64,438.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core i9-14901KE has a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, while the Core Ultra 7 265F has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 7 265F support ECC memory?

A: No. ECC memory is not supported on the Core Ultra 7 265F. The Core i9-14901KE does support ECC memory.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The Core i9-14901KE uses a 10 nm process node from Intel, while the Core Ultra 7 265F uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Core i9-14901KE includes UHD Graphics 770. The Core Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations. The Core i9-14901KE is based on Raptor Lake, with the codename Raptor Lake-R, and belongs to the Core 14th Gen series. The Core Ultra 7 265F is based on Arrow Lake, with the codename Arrow Lake-S, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2.

The core counts diverge sharply. The i9-14901KE has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads. The thread count difference means the i9-14901KE relies on Hyper-Threading to reach 16 threads from 8 cores, while the Ultra 7 265F uses one thread per core.

Cache hierarchies differ in capacity and distribution. The i9-14901KE 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 265F has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The i9-14901KE has more total L3 cache, while the Ultra 7 265F has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches.

The process nodes reflect different manufacturing sources. The i9-14901KE uses a 10 nm process from Intel and has a die size of 257 mm². The Ultra 7 265F uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, has a die size of 243 mm², and contains 17,800 million transistors. The i9-14901KE has no transistor count listed.

Memory support differs. The i9-14901KE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 265F supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The Ultra 7 265F has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the i9-14901KE has no memory bandwidth figure in the database.

ECC memory support also differs. The i9-14901KE supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 7 265F does not.

PCIe connectivity differs in lane count. The i9-14901KE provides 16 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra 7 265F provides 20 Gen 5 lanes.

The multiplier unlock status differs. The i9-14901KE has an unlocked multiplier, while the Ultra 7 265F does not.

The sockets are incompatible. The i9-14901KE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 7 265F uses Intel Socket 1851.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several specification fields. The core count is 8 for the i9-14901KE and 20 for the Ultra 7 265F. The thread count is 16 for the i9-14901KE and 20 for the Ultra 7 265F. The base clock is 3.80 GHz for the i9-14901KE and 2.40 GHz for the Ultra 7 265F. The boost clock is 5.80 GHz for the i9-14901KE and 5.30 GHz for the Ultra 7 265F.

The TDP is 125 W for the i9-14901KE and 65 W for the Ultra 7 265F. The socket is Intel Socket 1700 for the i9-14901KE and Intel Socket 1851 for the Ultra 7 265F. The architecture is Raptor Lake for the i9-14901KE and Arrow Lake for the Ultra 7 265F. The codename is Raptor Lake-R for the i9-14901KE and Arrow Lake-S for the Ultra 7 265F.

The generation is Core i9 (Raptor Lake Refresh) for the i9-14901KE and Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake) for the Ultra 7 265F. The process node is 10 nm for the i9-14901KE and 3 nm for the Ultra 7 265F. The foundry is Intel for the i9-14901KE and TSMC for the Ultra 7 265F. The die size is 257 mm² for the i9-14901KE and 243 mm² for the Ultra 7 265F.

The transistor count is not listed for the i9-14901KE and is 17,800 million for the Ultra 7 265F. The L1 cache is 80 KB per core for the i9-14901KE and 192 KB per core for the Ultra 7 265F. The L2 cache is 2 MB per core for the i9-14901KE and 3 MB per core for the Ultra 7 265F. The L3 cache is 36 MB shared for the i9-14901KE and 30 MB shared for the Ultra 7 265F.

Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 for the i9-14901KE and DDR5 only for the Ultra 7 265F. The memory bus is dual-channel for both. The memory bandwidth is not listed for the i9-14901KE and is 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 7 265F. ECC memory is supported on the i9-14901KE and not supported on the Ultra 7 265F.

PCIe is Gen 5 with 16 lanes for the i9-14901KE and Gen 5 with 20 lanes for the Ultra 7 265F. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 770 on the i9-14901KE and N/A on the Ultra 7 265F. The market segment is desktop for both. The production status is active for both.

The release date is 2024-06-30 for the i9-14901KE and 2025-01-06 for the Ultra 7 265F. The launch MSRP is not listed for the i9-14901KE and is $379 for the Ultra 7 265F. The multiplier is unlocked on the i9-14901KE and locked on the Ultra 7 265F. The part number is Q49DSRNJC for the i9-14901KE and SRQCV for the Ultra 7 265F.