Intel Core i9-14901TE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each processor?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901TE has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads, meaning it offers more physical cores but no hyper-threading.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901TE boosts up to 5.50 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H reaches 4.70 GHz. The i9 also has a higher base clock at 2.30 GHz versus 1.90 GHz.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: The Core i9-14901TE features 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 338H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Core i9-14901TE has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Core Ultra 5 338H has a TDP of 25 watts. The Ultra 5 is the lower-power part.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The Core i9-14901TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 5 338H supports LPDDR5X. Only the i9 supports ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H sits at the 84th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 33989. The Core i9-14901TE has a 50th percentile ranking and an average score of 0 in the database.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear separation between these two parts. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is the only one of the two with benchmark results in the database. It holds an 84th percentile position among all CPUs, which places it above the median performer. Its average benchmark score of 33989 puts it within 0.3% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H (score 34083) and 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i7-12800HX (score 33875). This is a mobile processor that delivers competitive multi-threaded results despite a 25-watt TDP.

The Intel Core i9-14901TE has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. Its 50th percentile ranking is based on its specifications alone, not measured performance. The i9 is a desktop part with a 45-watt TDP, 8 cores, 16 threads, and a 5.50 GHz boost clock. It also carries 36 MB of shared L3 cache, double the 18 MB found on the Ultra 5. The data does not allow a direct score comparison, so the i9 cannot be ranked against the Ultra 5 on measured output.

For workloads that rely on multi-threaded throughput per watt, the Ultra 5 338H is the part with actual recorded performance to back its claims. For desktop users who need more L3 cache and higher clock speeds, the i9-14901TE offers those specifications, but the database contains no benchmark evidence to confirm its real-world standing. The choice depends on whether measured results matter more than listed specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark array between the two processors is empty, so there are no direct paired test results to compare. However, the Core Ultra 5 338H has a full set of individual benchmark scores that the i9-14901TE lacks entirely.

In Cinebench tests, the Ultra 5 338H scores 2504 in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 305 in single-core. It moves to 10213 in Cinebench R20 multi-core and 1441 in single-core. The heaviest multi-threaded load, Cinebench R23, shows a multi-core score of 16331 and a single-core score of 2044. These numbers indicate a processor that scales well across increasing thread counts.

PassMark results for the Ultra 5 338H cover a wide range of workloads. The multi-thread score is 28717, while single-thread is 4180. Integer math scores 64934, floating-point math scores 84067, and extended instructions score 23906. Data compression reaches 276539, data encryption reaches 21367, and random string sorting reaches 34082. The physics test scores 2697, and find prime numbers scores 304.

Relative to its nearest rivals, the Ultra 5 338H is essentially at parity with the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H, trailing by only 0.3%. It leads the Intel Core i7-12800HX by 0.3% and the Intel Xeon 6353P by 0.4%. Against the AMD EPYC 4244P, it trails by 0.7%. These small deltas show that the Ultra 5 338H competes in a tight band of performance around the 33800 to 34200 score range.

The i9-14901TE has no recorded scores in any benchmark, so there are no wins to attribute to it in the database. The wins count shows 0 for the i9 and 0 for the Ultra 5 in direct head-to-head tests, because no such tests exist. The only measurable performance data in this comparison belongs to the Ultra 5 338H.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The Core i9-14901TE uses 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 338H uses 12 cores and 12 threads. The i9 has the higher base clock at 2.30 GHz versus 1.90 GHz, and the higher boost clock at 5.50 GHz versus 4.70 GHz.

TDP is another differentiator. The i9 is rated at 45 watts, the Ultra 5 at 25 watts. The socket types are completely different: the i9 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 uses Intel BGA 2540. The i9 is a desktop part, while the Ultra 5 is a mobile part.

Cache layouts differ significantly. The i9 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The i9 offers more total L3, while the Ultra 5 offers more L1 and L2 per core.

Memory support is not the same. The i9 supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 supports LPDDR5X. The i9 has ECC memory support; the Ultra 5 does not. The Ultra 5 lists a memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s, while the i9 has no bandwidth figure in the database.

PCIe lane counts also differ. The i9 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 5 provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics units are different as well: the i9 uses UHD Graphics 770, the Ultra 5 uses Arc B370.

The process nodes are not the same. The i9 is built on a 10 nm process, while the Ultra 5 is built on a 3 nm process. The die size for the i9 is 257 mm², while the Ultra 5 has no die size recorded. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is substantial. The Core i9-14901TE belongs to the Core 14th Gen series and uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R codename. Its generation is listed as Core i9 (Raptor Lake Refresh). The Core Ultra 5 338H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and uses the Panther Lake architecture, with the Panther Lake codename. Its generation is listed as Ultra 5 (Panther Lake-H).

The manufacturing process separates the two clearly. Intel builds the i9 on a 10 nm node, while the Ultra 5 uses a 3 nm node. Both are fabricated by Intel, but the difference in process technology is a major architectural shift. The i9 has a recorded die size of 257 mm², while the Ultra 5 has no die size recorded in the database.

Cache architecture reflects different design priorities. The i9 allocates 80 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core, with a large 36 MB shared L3 pool. The Ultra 5 allocates 192 KB of L1 and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 18 MB of shared L3. The per-core cache on the Ultra 5 is larger, but the total L3 is smaller.

The market segments and release timing are different. The i9 is a desktop processor released on 2024-06-30. The Ultra 5 is a mobile processor released on 2026-01-04. The i9 uses Intel Socket 1700, which supports desktop motherboard mounting, while the Ultra 5 uses Intel BGA 2540, a ball-grid array for mobile systems.

Integrated graphics differ at the architecture level. The i9 pairs with UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 5 pairs with Arc B370. Memory controllers also differ in their supported types: the i9 handles DDR4 and DDR5, the Ultra 5 handles LPDDR5X only. The Ultra 5 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s, while the i9 has no such figure.

The PCIe implementations are not equal. The i9 exposes Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, which is typical for a desktop platform. The Ultra 5 exposes Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU, consistent with a mobile form factor. Both parts are active in production, and neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.