From www.tomshardware.com

Raptor Lake

Raptor Lake (Image credit: Intel)

Hardware leaker Jaykihn has shared various benchmarks for an Arrow Lake-S processor tested at 250W. According to the leaked results, the Arrow Lake-S chip was up to 18% faster than the Core i9-14900K, currently one of the best CPUs around.

The leaker published a benchmark table featuring two Arrow Lake processors and the Core i9-14900K. The two Arrow Lake chips included were an engineering sample and a qualification sample; however, CPU specs and model names were completely absent. That said, it is highly probable both chips are pre-production variants of the flagship Core Ultra 9 285K, which purportedly comes with 24 cores. The three chips reportedly ran at 250W. As always, we recommend treating leaked benchmarks with a pinch of salt.

For simplicity’s sake, we are primarily looking at the Arrow Lake-S qualification sample since that chip is much faster than the engineering sample and is a closer representative of the final product.

Swipe to scroll horizontally

BenchmarksArrow Lake-S Qualification SampleCore i9-14900KPerformance Margin
CrossMark2,5872,432Arrow Lake-S QS 6% Faster
WebXPRT4 3.73 Chrome v114372388Core i9-14900K 4% Faster
Speedometer 2.1 Chrome v114472521Core i9-14900K 10% Faster
Geekbench 5.4.5 Single Core2,4552,432Arrow Lake-S QS 9% Faster
Geekbech 5.4.5 Multi Core27,38123,902Arrow Lake-S QS 14% Faster
Cinebench R2343,11836,681Arrow Lake-S QS 18% Faster

Benchmark results are mixed. CrossMark, Geekbench 5.4.5, and Cinebench R23 demonstrate faster performance from the Arrow Lake-S chip than the Core i9-14900K. However, WebXPRT4 and Speedometer (both running in Chrome) show more favorable results for the Core i9-14900K.

The Arrow Lake-S qualification sample was 6% faster than the Core i9-14900K in CrossMark, with a score of 2,587 versus the Core i9-14900K’s 2,432. In Geekbench, the Arrow Lake chip pulls away from the Core i9-14900K, 9% faster in the single-core benchmark and 14% faster in the multi-core benchmark. Cinebench R23 showed the most favorable results for the Arrow Lake-S QS chip, with an 18% performance lead ahead of the Core i9-14900K.

Conversely, the Core i9-14900K was faster in the Chrome-based tests. WebXPRT4 shows a 4% advantage for the Raptor Lake Refresh flagship, and Speedometer also indicates a 10% lead for the Core i9-14900K.

Harukaze5719 pulled Jaykihn’s Arrow Lake-S QS Cinebench R23 results and put them together with various Ryzen 9 9950X and Ryzen 7 7950X results to see where Zen 5 and Zen 4 lands against Intel’s next-generation desktop architecture.

Get Tom’s Hardware’s best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.

Arrow Lake vs. Raptor Lake vs. Zen 5

(Image credit: Harukaze5719/X)

The chart revealed that the Arrow Lake part is mainly in the same alley as the Ryzen 9 9950X in Cinebench R23, but only at specific power targets. The Arrow Lake chip’s score in Cinebnech resembles a Ryzen 9 9950X result taken from the AnandTech forums operating at 160W, with the Arrow Lake chip outperforming the Ryzen 9 9950X (at 160W) by 1%.

However, bumping up the Ryzen 9 9950X to 230W purportedly nullifies the Intel chips performance lead, with the Ryzen 9 9950X at 230W outperforming the Arrow Lake qualification sample by 7%.

AMD’s Ryzen 9000 processors are around the corner, while Intel’s contending Arrow Lake chips are still a few months away. While we’ll soon see what Zen 5 is capable of, a thorough comparison with Arrow Lake won’t be possible outside of leaked benchmarks in the meantime.

Aaron Klotz is a contributing writer for Tom’s Hardware, covering news related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.

[ For more curated Computing news, check out the main news page here]

The post Arrow Lake CPU up to 18% faster than Core i9-14900K at 250W — Ryzen 9 9950X still faster first appeared on www.tomshardware.com

New reasons to get excited everyday.



Get the latest tech news delivered right in your mailbox

You may also like

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

More in computing