Core Ultra 5 338H vs Core i9 14900KS
Head-to-head specifications
| Metric | Core Ultra 5 338H | Core i9 14900KS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cinebench 2024 single-core | 122 | 144 | -15.3% |
| Cinebench 2024 multi-core | 968 | 2,443 | -60.4% |
| Cores | 12 (4P+8E) | 24 (8P+16E) | — |
| TDP (base W) | 15 | 150 | — |
| PassMark CPU Mark | 28,730 | 60,019 | -52.1% |
- Core Ultra 5 338H is slower than Core i9 14900KS by 15.3% in single-core and slower by 60.4% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
- Core Ultra 5 338H draws less power (15W vs 150W base TDP).
Verdict: Core Ultra 5 338H or Core i9 14900KS?
Core Ultra 5 338H advantages
- Power efficiency (+90%)
Core i9 14900KS advantages
- Single-core speed (+15%)
- Multi-core speed (+60%)
Which should you choose?
- Choose the Core Ultra 5 338H if you want a cooler, quieter and more power-efficient build.
- Choose the Core i9 14900KS if you mainly game or want snappy everyday responsiveness.
Core Ultra 5 338H vs Core i9 14900KS: which should you choose?
Core Ultra 5 338H — 12-core Intel processor (4P+8E) scoring 122 single-core and 968 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 15 W TDP.
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.
Core Ultra 5 338H vs Core i9 14900KS: Core i9 14900KS leads in multi-core performance. Core Ultra 5 338H is slower than Core i9 14900KS by 15.3% in single-core and slower by 60.4% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra 5 338H draws less power (15W 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 122, 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 Core i9 14900KS is stronger, posting 2,443 multi-core against 968 in Cinebench 2024. Its 24 cores (8 performance + 16 efficiency) give it real headroom for heavy parallel jobs.
Power and platform
The Core Ultra 5 338H is the more efficient chip at 15 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 Ultra 5 338H better than the Core i9 14900KS?
Core i9 14900KS is the clearly stronger overall choice, winning most of the dimensions that matter. Core Ultra 5 338H is slower than Core i9 14900KS by 15.3% in single-core and slower by 60.4% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
What is the main difference between the Core Ultra 5 338H and the Core i9 14900KS?
Core Ultra 5 338H is slower than Core i9 14900KS by 15.3% in single-core and slower by 60.4% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra 5 338H draws less power (15W vs 150W base TDP).
Which should I choose?
Choose the Core Ultra 5 338H if you want a cooler, quieter and more power-efficient build. Choose the Core i9 14900KS if you mainly game or want snappy everyday responsiveness.
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.