Intel Core i9-14901TE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no directly recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the Intel Core i9-14901TE and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F. The Intel Core i9-14901TE has no benchmark entries, no average score, and no percentile ranking recorded in the database. Its wins count is zero, and its nearest rivals list is empty.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F, by contrast, has a full suite of recorded results. Its average benchmark score is 37313, placing it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs tracked. The data shows a mixed set of nearest rivals with tight margins: the Intel Core i9-13900HK scores 37425, which is 0.3% ahead of the Ultra 5 225F. The AMD Ryzen 7 7735H scores 37161, putting the Ultra 5 225F 0.4% ahead. The Intel Core i7-13700 scores 37135, a 0.5% lead for the Ultra 5 225F, and the AMD Ryzen 7 160 scores 37117, also a 0.5% lead. These deltas indicate the Ultra 5 225F sits squarely in a competitive cluster, within half a percentage point of each rival in either direction.

For the i9-14901TE, the absence of recorded scores means no direct performance comparison can be derived from the database. The only comparative insight comes from the specification sheets, which show different core configurations and clock profiles. The i9-14901TE offers 8 cores and 16 threads with a 2.30 GHz base clock and a 5.50 GHz boost clock. The Ultra 5 225F offers 10 cores and 10 threads with a 3.30 GHz base clock and a 4.90 GHz boost clock. The higher boost clock on the i9-14901TE suggests a potential single-thread advantage, while the Ultra 5 225F has more physical cores, though no hyperthreading, so its thread count is lower.

Benchmark results for the Ultra 5 225F show strong multicore and singlecore performance. In Cinebench R23, it scores 16467 multicore and 1893 singlecore. In Cinebench R20, it scores 11059 multicore and 1561 singlecore. In Cinebench R15, it scores 2660 multicore and 287 singlecore. PassMark results include a multithread score of 31004, a single-thread score of 4397, floating point math at 92554, integer math at 66417, extended instructions at 28027, data compression at 310843, data encryption at 22648, physics at 2430, and random string sorting at 37325.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and use different manufacturing processes. The Intel Core i9-14901TE is built on Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-R, part of the Core 14th Gen series and Core i9 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. It uses a 10 nm process node manufactured by Intel. Its die size is 257 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F is built on Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, part of the Core Ultra Series 2 and Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) generation. It uses a 3 nm process node manufactured by TSMC. Its die size is 243 mm², and it contains 17,800 million transistors.

Cache configurations differ notably. The i9-14901TE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 5 225F has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The i9-14901TE has a larger L3 pool overall, while the Ultra 5 225F has more L1 and L2 per core.

Memory support differs as well. The i9-14901TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, and it supports ECC memory. The Ultra 5 225F supports only DDR5 on a dual-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and it does not support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The i9-14901TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU only. The Ultra 5 225F provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU only.

Integrated graphics are present on the i9-14901TE, which uses UHD Graphics 770. The Ultra 5 225F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Sockets are incompatible between the two. The i9-14901TE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 225F uses Intel Socket 1851.

Both processors have locked multipliers, so neither supports unlocked overclocking. Both are desktop market segment parts with active production status.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901TE has a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F boost clock of 4.90 GHz.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The i9-14901TE has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 5 225F has 10 cores and 10 threads. The Ultra 5 225F has two more physical cores, but the i9-14901TE has six more threads due to hyperthreading.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The i9-14901TE supports ECC memory. The Ultra 5 225F does not.

Q: Does the Ultra 5 225F have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Ultra 5 225F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A. The i9-14901TE includes UHD Graphics 770.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The i9-14901TE uses a 10 nm process node from Intel. The Ultra 5 225F uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC.

Q: What is the average benchmark score and percentile for the Ultra 5 225F?

A: The Ultra 5 225F has an average benchmark score of 37313 and sits in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. The i9-14901TE has no recorded average benchmark score in the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field recorded in the database.

The i9-14901TE has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ultra 5 225F has 10 cores and 10 threads. Base clocks are 2.30 GHz for the i9-14901TE and 3.30 GHz for the Ultra 5 225F. Boost clocks are 5.50 GHz for the i9-14901TE and 4.90 GHz for the Ultra 5 225F. TDP is 45 for the i9-14901TE and 65 for the Ultra 5 225F.

The i9-14901TE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 225F uses Intel Socket 1851. Architecture is Raptor Lake for the i9-14901TE and Arrow Lake for the Ultra 5 225F. Codename is Raptor Lake-R for the i9-14901TE and Arrow Lake-S for the Ultra 5 225F. Generation is Core i9 (Raptor Lake Refresh) for the i9-14901TE and Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) for the Ultra 5 225F.

Process node is 10 nm for the i9-14901TE and 3 nm for the Ultra 5 225F. Foundry is Intel for the i9-14901TE and TSMC for the Ultra 5 225F. Transistor count is not recorded for the i9-14901TE, while the Ultra 5 225F has 17,800 million transistors. Die size is 257 mm² for the i9-14901TE and 243 mm² for the Ultra 5 225F.

L1 cache is 80 KB per core for the i9-14901TE and 192 KB per core for the Ultra 5 225F. L2 cache is 2 MB per core for the i9-14901TE and 3 MB per core for the Ultra 5 225F. L3 cache is 36 MB shared for the i9-14901TE and 20 MB shared for the Ultra 5 225F.

Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 for the i9-14901TE, but DDR5 only for the Ultra 5 225F. Memory bandwidth is not recorded for the i9-14901TE, while the Ultra 5 225F has 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the i9-14901TE and not on the Ultra 5 225F. PCIe is Gen 5 with 16 lanes for the i9-14901TE and Gen 5 with 20 lanes for the Ultra 5 225F. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 770 for the i9-14901TE and N/A for the Ultra 5 225F.

Release dates differ as well. The i9-14901TE was released on 2024-06-30. The Ultra 5 225F was released on 2025-01-06. The Ultra 5 225F has a launch MSRP of $231. The i9-14901TE has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The database offers a clear verdict for the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F, because it has recorded benchmarks and a percentile ranking, while the Intel Core i9-14901TE has none. The Ultra 5 225F sits in the 85th percentile of all CPUs with an average score of 37313, and its nearest rivals are all within 0.5% either way. The i9-14901TE has no benchmark data, no average score, and no percentile ranking, so its measured performance cannot be stated.

For users who need ECC memory support, DDR4 compatibility, integrated graphics, or a higher boost clock, the i9-14901TE is the only option among the two based on the recorded specifications. Its 5.50 GHz boost clock is the highest figure in either specification sheet, and its 36 MB of shared L3 cache is larger than the 20 MB on the Ultra 5 225F.

For users who need more physical cores, a smaller process node, higher base clock, lower power consumption per the TDP figure, or a newer release date, the Ultra 5 225F is the choice. It also has more PCIe lanes at Gen 5 with 20 lanes versus 16 lanes. The Ultra 5 225F has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, which the i9-14901TE lacks entirely in the database.

The i9-14901TE has a lower TDP of 45 versus 65, which indicates a lower thermal design point on paper. The Ultra 5 225F has a higher TDP but also a higher base clock of 3.30 GHz versus 2.30 GHz.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a differentiator. Both are active desktop parts.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F wins in every measured benchmark category, simply because it is the only one of the two with recorded results. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 16467 and singlecore score of 1893 establish a baseline. Its PassMark multithread score of 31004 and single-thread score of 4397 provide additional reference points.

The i9-14901TE wins on paper in several specification areas. Its boost clock of 5.50 GHz is the highest recorded for either processor. Its L3 cache of 36 MB shared is larger. Its TDP of 45 is lower. It supports ECC memory, DDR4 and DDR5 memory, and includes UHD Graphics 770. It also uses Intel Socket 1700, which may be relevant for platform compatibility with existing boards.

The Ultra 5 225F wins on paper in other specification areas. Its process node is 3 nm versus 10 nm, its transistor count is 17,800 million versus no recorded figure, its base clock is 3.30 GHz versus 2.30 GHz, its core count is 10 versus 8, its L1 cache per core is 192 KB versus 80 KB, its L2 cache per core is 3 MB versus 2 MB, its memory bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s versus no recorded figure, and its PCIe lane count is 20 versus 16. It also has a recorded launch MSRP of $231.

The data indicates a split decision based on workload priorities. The Ultra 5 225F delivers measurable performance results and newer process technology. The i9-14901TE delivers a higher boost clock, more L3 cache, lower TDP, broader memory support, integrated graphics, and ECC capability, but no benchmark scores to confirm real-world performance.