Core i9 14900KS vs M3 Ultra
Head-to-head specifications
| Metric | Core i9 14900KS | M3 Ultra | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cinebench 2024 single-core | 144 | 133 | +8.3% |
| Cinebench 2024 multi-core | 2,443 | 2,753 | -11.3% |
| Cores | 24 (8P+16E) | 32 (24P+8E) | — |
| TDP (base W) | 150 | 140 | — |
- Core i9 14900KS is faster than M3 Ultra by 8.3% in single-core and slower by 11.3% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
- M3 Ultra draws less power (140W vs 150W base TDP).
Verdict: Core i9 14900KS or M3 Ultra?
Core i9 14900KS advantages
- Single-core speed (+8%)
M3 Ultra advantages
- Multi-core speed (+11%)
- Power efficiency (+7%)
Which should you choose?
- Choose the Core i9 14900KS if you mainly game or want snappy everyday responsiveness.
- Choose the M3 Ultra if you render video, compile code or run heavy multitasking.
Core i9 14900KS vs M3 Ultra: which should you choose?
Core i9 14900KS — 24-core Intel processor (8P+16E) scoring 144 single-core and 2443 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 150 W TDP and 36 MB L3 cache.
M3 Ultra — 32-core Apple processor (24P+8E) scoring 133 single-core and 2753 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 140 W TDP.
Core i9 14900KS vs M3 Ultra: M3 Ultra leads in multi-core performance. Core i9 14900KS is faster than M3 Ultra by 8.3% in single-core and slower by 11.3% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). M3 Ultra draws less power (140W vs 150W base TDP).
Gaming and single-threaded work
Games and everyday responsiveness lean on single-core speed. The Core i9 14900KS leads there with a single-core score of 144 versus 133, so it is the marginally better pick for high-refresh gaming — though at typical resolutions the GPU usually decides frame rates.
Content creation and multitasking
For rendering, compilation, video export and other all-core workloads, the M3 Ultra is stronger, posting 2,753 multi-core against 2,443 in Cinebench 2024. Its 32 cores (24 performance + 8 efficiency) give it real headroom for heavy parallel jobs.
Power and platform
The M3 Ultra is the more efficient chip at 140 W versus 150 W, which means less heat, quieter cooling and lower running costs under sustained load.
The verdict
Both are credible choices in the processor comparison space; the specification table above lays out every metric so you can weigh the trade-offs that matter to you. Pick the one whose strengths line up with how you will actually use it.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Core i9 14900KS better than the M3 Ultra?
These two are closely matched — the right pick comes down to which specific strengths you value and the price you actually pay. Core i9 14900KS is faster than M3 Ultra by 8.3% in single-core and slower by 11.3% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
What is the main difference between the Core i9 14900KS and the M3 Ultra?
Core i9 14900KS is faster than M3 Ultra by 8.3% in single-core and slower by 11.3% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). M3 Ultra draws less power (140W vs 150W base TDP).
Which should I choose?
Choose the Core i9 14900KS if you mainly game or want snappy everyday responsiveness. Choose the M3 Ultra if you render video, compile code or run heavy multitasking.
Methodology
Processors are compared on Cinebench 2024 single-core and multi-core scores from published leaderboard results, alongside core configuration (performance + efficiency cores), base TDP, L3 cache, PassMark CPU Mark, 1080p gaming scores and street pricing where measured. Cinebench reflects rendering-style workloads; gaming performance depends heavily on the GPU and the specific title, so treat single-core standing as directional. Figures reflect the leaderboard snapshot on the page date.