## Intel Core Ultra 9 285K: A Revolutionary CPU With a Catch
The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is not your average processor. This is a chip that completely breaks the mold, from its design to its features, all centered around a bold new vision of highly efficient desktop CPUs. And get this: it actually delivers on that promise. Even compared to the most powerful processors out there, the Core Ultra 9 285K pulls off feats that feel downright magical, like stepping out of the past decade of CPU development.
Calling the Core Ultra 9 285K anything less than impressive would be a serious understatement. Intel has not only nailed efficiency, but also delivered significant performance gains, seemingly conquering its past instability woes. However, despite all the praise, the Core Ultra 9 285K faces a surprising hurdle: making a compelling case for a consumer purchase.
## A Radical Departure From the Norm
The Intel Core Ultra 200S series, previously known as Arrow Lake, might appear unremarkable at first glance. The core counts resemble those of 12th, 13th, and 14th generation CPUs, with the familiar split between performance (P) and efficient (E) cores. Power consumption remains consistent, and clock speeds have only seen a slight decrease, nothing dramatic. But appearances are deceiving. The Core Ultra 9 285K, and the entire Core Ultra 200S lineup, marks a dramatic departure from the norm.
Intel’s first major shakeup is the complete elimination of Hyper-Threading. Each core now solely handles a single thread, breaking a decades-long practice of assigning two threads per core that Intel and AMD have long adhered to. This immediately puts the Core Ultra 9 285K at a thread disadvantage against the Ryzen 9 9950X, necessitating more powerful individual cores to compensate for the thread disparity in multi-threaded workloads.
And indeed, these cores are significantly more robust. While the Core Ultra 9 285K still features P-cores and E-cores, a surprising twist emerges: the E-cores are now the performance champions, not the P-cores, as we saw in the Core i9-12900K that introduced Intel’s hybrid architecture. This unconventional shift sees the E-cores driving base performance, while P-cores step in for demanding tasks requiring high speed on just a few threads.
This architectural overhaul brings significant efficiency improvements, as demonstrated in the benchmarks discussed later. The setup mirrors Intel’s mobile Lunar Lake CPUs, only amplified with more cores, higher clock speeds, larger caches, and more generous power limits. The E-cores leverage the Skymont design, promising a 2% improvement in IPC (instructions per clock) over the Raptor Cove P-core design featured in 13th and 14th generation chips. Meanwhile, the P-cores utilize the Lion Cove design. This architecture can be viewed as a combination of P-cores and P+-cores, with Skymont emerging as the primary performance driver.
Another significant change lies in the manufacturing process. This is the first desktop CPU that Intel hasn’t built in-house. The Core Ultra 9 285K is manufactured on TSMC’s N3B node, as Intel abandoned its previously announced plans to build on the 20A node. Lastly, the Core Ultra 200S range integrates a 13 TOPS NPU, though its relevance in a desktop environment is expected to be minimal for several years, particularly for users with discrete GPUs.
## Benchmarking the Core Ultra 9 285K: An Impressively Efficient Performer
The Core Ultra 9 285K truly shines in benchmarks like Cinebench R24, the go-to benchmark for gauging CPU performance. It eclipses both the Ryzen 9 9950X and the Core i9-14900K in multi-core performance by 15% and 20%, respectively, despite having access to 24 threads compared to the other two chips’ 32 threads. Intel specifically highlighted the Core Ultra 9 285K’s significant gains in ray-traced renderers like Cinebench, and indeed, Geekbench 6 further reinforces this trend, narrowing the performance gap between the CPUs. Although a slight decrease in single-core speed is observed compared to the Ryzen 9 9950X and Core i9-14900K, it’s not a significant drop. The Core Ultra 9 285K still reigns supreme in multi-core performance, especially when paired with high-speed memory.
While Cinebench and Geekbench showcase the Core Ultra 9 285K’s strengths, its performance in other benchmarks ranges from competitive to disappointing. In Handbrake transcoding, the Core Ultra 9 285K falls just slightly behind the Ryzen 9 9950X in x265 video transcoding. Considering the generational improvements, this can be considered nearly identical performance. The Ryzen 9 9950X proves to be the Core Ultra 9 285K’s toughest competitor.
In Blender, the Core Ultra 9 285K demonstrates impressive generational improvements in rendering applications, significantly outperforming the Core i9-14900K. However, AMD’s new Ryzen 9 9950X still emerges as the winner, with a substantial lead in some rendering tests. The Core Ultra 9 285K also suffers from the lack of AVX-512 support, an issue not relevant for most users. However, applications utilizing AVX-512 instructions benefit significantly from its native support in AMD’s latest Zen 5 CPUs. Y-Cruncher exemplifies this, showing a dramatic performance uplift with Zen 5 CPUs compared to the Core Ultra 9 285K, which still offers impressive generational improvements.
The Core Ultra 9 285K’s performance story takes a surprising turn in Adobe Premiere Pro and Photoshop. Premiere Pro sees the Core Ultra 9 285K falling short of every CPU tested except for the 12-core Ryzen 9 9900X. The situation in Photoshop is even more concerning, with the Core Ultra 9 285K delivering the lowest performance among all tested CPUs. This is troubling considering that older components like the Core i9-13900K and Ryzen 9 7950X offer clearly superior performance.
It’s impossible to ignore this performance discrepancy. Thorough testing with different motherboards, memory kits, overclocked and stock settings, and various power limits, along with two separate Core Ultra 9 285K models, revealed consistent results. While the performance gains across other benchmarks are substantial, they fail to translate into applications like Premiere Pro and Photoshop. This inconsistency remains a major point of concern.
## Gaming Performance: A Missed Opportunity
Expectations for gaming performance on the Core Ultra 9 285K weren’t high. Intel aimed to merely maintain, not improve, gaming performance. Across ten tested games, the Core Ultra 9 285K performs on par with, or slightly slower than, the previous generation Core i9-14900K, falling significantly behind AMD’s Ryzen 7 7800X3D.
In less demanding games, where the graphics card becomes the bottleneck, especially at higher resolutions and graphics settings, performance differences are minimal. For instance, in Returnal, Assassin’s Creed Mirage, and Black Myth: Wukong, frame rates remain largely consistent. However, the Core i9-14900K manages to edge out the Core Ultra 9 285K in Mirage and Black Myth by a few frames, demonstrating a near-identical performance level for this generation-on-generation comparison.
The Ryzen 7 7800X3D, however, consistently outperforms all other CPUs in most games, making comparisons futile. In Red Dead Redemption 2, a graphically intensive game, performance across CPUs is largely flat, with the exception of the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, highlighting its dominance. This leaves the Core Ultra 9 285K trailing behind its last-gen counterpart and the Ryzen 9 9950X. If gaming is your primary focus, none of these CPUs are ideal choices.
Other games reveal more interesting results. The Ryzen 7 7800X3D continues to lead the pack, but the Core Ultra 9 285K demonstrates some peculiar performance fluctuations. In F1 2022, the processor lags behind both the Core i9-13900K and Core i9-14900K. However, paired with fast DDR5 memory, it surprisingly pulls ahead. Similarly, in Final Fantasy XIV Dawntrail, the Core Ultra 9 285K shifts from a slight loss to the Core i9-14900K to a slight lead with fast memory. In both cases, AMD’s Ryzen 9 9950X prevails, with the Ryzen 7 7800X3D topping the charts. While this exploration of memory scalability on the Core Ultra 9 285K is interesting, it doesn’t change the purchasing decision, as AMD’s CPUs ultimately offer superior performance.
The Core Ultra 9 285K manages to claim victory in only one game: Hitman 3. However, this win is debatable, given the extremely close performance between the top three chips, and the fact that the Core Ultra 9 285K required significantly faster memory to even surpass its last-gen counterpart. There are minor generational improvements observed in Ashes of the Singularity and Tiny Tina’s Wonderlands. However, AMD’s competition proves to be the primary challenge, as Intel essentially concedes gaming performance to AMD in this generation by merely maintaining it rather than pushing the boundaries.
## Efficiency and Temperature: Intel’s Triumph
Intel may not have improved gaming performance with the Core Ultra 9 285K, but it achieved its primary goal of enhancing efficiency. Temperature and power consumption show notable improvements. Despite delivering similar performance, the Core Ultra 9 285K frequently consumes 50% less power, with even more significant efficiency gains in some instances. While these impressive numbers were visible during benchmarking, seeing them side by side on a graph reinforces the remarkable efficiency gains achieved by Intel.
However, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D continues to outperform. Despite delivering significantly higher performance, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D consumes even less power, further highlighting the Core Ultra 9 285K’s mixed performance story. Intel’s accomplishments are undeniable, but they rarely influence the final purchase decision.
Despite consuming more power, the Core Ultra 9 285K consistently runs cooler. While this difference might seem negligible in this scenario, it’s essential to remember that these tests were conducted with a powerful 360mm all-in-one liquid cooler. In more thermally constrained environments, like small form factor PCs, the Core Ultra 9 285K’s temperature advantage could become much more significant.
The biggest efficiency improvements are observed in gaming. The Core Ultra 9 285K is more efficient in demanding workloads like Cinebench and Handbrake, while comfortably exceeding 200 watts when necessary. This demonstrates a clear performance enhancement with lower power consumption, unlike gaming, where efficiency comes at the cost of performance. The temperature improvements in productivity applications aren’t as drastic, but these differences would become more pronounced in thermally constrained environments.
## The Question of Instability
It’s impossible to discuss the Core Ultra 9 285K without addressing Intel’s recent desktop woes. The Core i9-14900K and Core i9-13900K suffered severe instability issues that Intel only recently managed to resolve. Will the Core Ultra 9 285K face similar challenges? Intel insists that it won’t, but there’s no guarantee. Intel’s commitment to preventing a repeat of past mistakes is evident. The BIOS of a Z890 motherboard clearly showcases Intel’s focus on stability. Both motherboards tested used default power settings, labelled as Intel’s defaults. Intel has also established more robust communication channels with motherboard partners to ensure consistency across different motherboard models and prevent widespread, persistent instability issues, should they arise. However, the future remains uncertain. Intel has all the necessary tools in place, and it’s highly likely that the Core Ultra 9 285K will not encounter instability problems. However, it’s impossible to test for these issues in a day-one review. Only time will tell.
## Should You Buy the Core Ultra 9 285K?
The Core Ultra 9 285K is an intriguing processor. Its remarkable efficiency improvements and the innovative design that sees Intel dismantle its core principles, from in-house manufacturing to Hyper-Threading, are truly impressive. There’s no denying the chip’s potential. But impressive doesn’t always equate to good.
While Intel’s dedication to building upon the Core Ultra 9 285K to deliver highly efficient components is commendable, and testing suggests that future generations will be exceptional, the current iteration falls short for many users. For gamers, the Core Ultra 9 285K offers little advantage. While it’s far more efficient than the Core i9-14900K, it doesn’t deliver faster performance. Furthermore, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D exists, with the Ryzen 7 9800X3D on the horizon. Intel essentially surrendered the gaming battlefield before the Core Ultra 9 285K even launched, and if gaming is your priority, AMD’s 3D V-Cache CPUs remain the superior choice.
In productivity tasks, the Core Ultra 9 285K and Ryzen 9 9950X engage in a close battle. However, the AMD chip consistently delivered more reliable performance. While Intel may have software improvements in the pipeline that could tip the scales in its favor, the Ryzen 9 9950X currently offers a more compelling purchase.
The Core Ultra 9 285K does have its niche. It’s a strong choice for small form factor PCs where efficiency and a balance of productivity and gaming performance are desired. However, for most users, better options exist. Intel has taken a bold step with the Core Ultra 9 285K, but it’s a step that requires refinement to truly reach its full potential.