Intel Core Ultra 9 285K review: Topping productivity with ultra-efficiency, but is it enough to warrant an upgrade?

As a seasoned tech enthusiast with over two decades of tinkering under my belt, I find myself thoroughly impressed by Intel’s latest offering – the Core Ultra 9 285K. Coming from someone who has seen the evolution of processors from the Pentium days, this chip is a testament to Intel’s relentless pursuit of performance and efficiency.

The latest top-tier desktop processor from Intel exhibits some uncommon features. Instead of adhering to the usual naming scheme (Series 1), it employs the Core Ultra Series 2, which was primarily used in mobile chips. Moreover, this new generation places a significant emphasis on energy efficiency rather than sheer power output.

Instead of suggesting that it’s unlikely for the Intel Core Ultra 200S desktop processor, with its 125W base TDP and impressive 24-core, 24-thread configuration, to match the performance of its previous-generation Core i9 processor (14900K) in the eyes of some hardcore gamers, it might be more natural to say: While there’s no doubt about the potential of the Intel Core Ultra 200S, given its 24-core, 24-thread setup and 125W base TDP, many avid gamers within its target market may not find it particularly exciting due to its aim for comparable performance with the last-gen Core i9 (14900K).

In essence, having both the Core Ultra 9 285K and Ultra 5 245K launching concurrently at the same price point, each offering power efficiency enhancements, raises a question: Is it wiser to opt for the Ultra 9 given its potential improvements? After all, custom-built desktops tend to consume more power than an average space heater. Furthermore, we are transitioning from Intel’s microcode instability issues that impacted their 13th/early 14th Gen processors, marking a new beginning for enthusiasts. Here’s what I discovered during my testing.

Core Ultra 9 285K: Price, availability, and specs

Intel is introducing five models of its Core Ultra Series 2 desktop processors. However, among these, two versions, labeled as “-KF,” do not include an integrated graphics processor.

Intel’s suggested retail price at the highest end for the Core i9-285K is between $589 and $599. However, like many high-end PC components, their prices tend to rise around launch time, with initial offerings for the i9-285K hovering near $629.99.

Essentially, Intel positions the new Core Ultra 9 285K against its previous-generation Core i9-14900K desktop processor, both priced at around $589 to $599 and with a base power consumption of 125W.

As a tech enthusiast, I find it intriguing that while the Ultra 9 285K has a lower thread count compared to the 14900K’s 32 threads, it boasts more cache and faster clock speeds. What sets it apart is its construction on TSMC’s N3B (3nm node) process, which is more compact than Intel’s 10nm node used in the 14900K. This could potentially lead to better performance and efficiency.

For the Arrow Lake-S chips in the Core Ultra Series 2, a fresh LGA1851 socket is employed, deviating from the LGA1700 used by Intel’s 12th, 13th, and 14th Gen processors. This change necessitates either an upgrade or complete revamp of motherboards to accommodate the new Intel 800 chipset. Fortunately, many CPU coolers can still be used with a socket adapter.

Switching over to the Intel 800 chipset left none of my existing motherboards compatible with the Core Ultra 9 285K processor. During the testing phase, Intel’s engineers suggested a variety of components from different brands, and I chose those that seemed best suited for this top-tier CPU. While these suggestions aren’t essential, more Z890 motherboards are expected to arrive at retailers around the time of the Core Ultra 200S launch. However, I found this combination ideal for my specific requirements.

Core Ultra 9 285K: CPU benchmarks

Running each CPU-centric benchmark multiple times to record the best score shows the Core Ultra 9 285K performing in line with Intel’s expectations or slightly ahead. Without any overclocking, besides activating a DDR5-6000 XMP profile for the accompanying 32GB of RAM, a test in Geekbench 6 shows the Ultra 9 285K coming out on top with its burst performance benchmark, ahead of AMD’s high-end Ryzen 9 9950X, which runs at a higher 170W base TDP with more L3 cache.

Comparing the Core Ultra 9 285K to its Core i9-14900K predecessor shows a healthy uplift in multi-core performance and even higher in single-core testing, with Intel even beating AMD’s 9950X in the single-core side of a sustained CPU stress test within Cinebench 2024. It’s the same story for single-core comparisons against the 9950X in CPU-Z’s benchmark, and though I don’t have the numbers for a 14900K comparison, there’s evidence for an assumed win.

Examining the Core Ultra 9 285K against its previous model, the Core i9-14900K, reveals a significant improvement in multicore performance and an even more substantial enhancement in single-core benchmarking.

In the benchmark for 7-Zip, an unexpected outcome occurred: the 125W Core Ultra 9 285K trailed behind both the 170W Ryzen 9 9950X and the 120W Ryzen 9 9900X. Since these AMD processors were tested using the same NVMe SSD, it suggests that their .7z file decompression capabilities are stronger compared to Intel’s. In terms of raw compute performance, Team Red seems to have the upper hand. Despite this, Intel has shown a notable improvement in performance over its previous model, the 14900K, without any BIOS-level adjustments or overclocking efforts.

Testing Intel’s Neural Processing Unit (NPU) using Geekbench AI yielded scores of 8,560 (Single Precision), 8,285 (Half Precision), and 12,828 (Quantized). These results were achieved with OpenVINO, but comparing them to the scores of 3,000 (Single), 18,746 (Half), and 26,031 (Quantized) from the Core Ultra 7 258V Lunar Lake mobile chip in an ASUS Zenbook S 14 (UX5406S) is challenging because AI computing benchmarks are still relatively new. However, Intel’s NPU 3 tile represents a significant advancement for their desktop chips.

Is the Core Ultra 9 285K good for gaming?

As a researcher, when I received the Core Ultra 200S processor samples shortly after procuring a Z890 motherboard, I prioritized synthetic CPU-oriented benchmarks such as Geekbench 6 and Cinebench 2024 for my preliminary review. Although I lack specific in-game benchmark data for the Core Ultra 9 285K, its performance indicators suggest it should be competent. However, games tend to behave distinctly from productivity software, often leveraging larger L3 caches more effectively, as demonstrated by processors like AMD’s 7000X3D series.

According to Intel’s internal data, the Ultra 9 285K is expected to offer around 173 frames per second (FPS) in Cyberpunk 2077’s benchmark at 1080p with a ‘High’ graphics setting. In comparison, the 7800X3D delivers an average of 251 FPS and 168 FPS respectively under the same conditions in Shadow of the Tomb Raider. This implies that AMD’s 3D V-cache may provide a better gaming performance.

Despite leading in raw productivity computing, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is not surprisingly the top dog in gaming. Intel has consistently communicated that this processor aims to deliver lower temperatures and better energy efficiency while offering “comparable or superior gaming performance” compared to its previous-gen Core i9-14900K. Consequently, it can be considered suitable for gaming but not necessarily the best option available.

Core Ultra 9 285K: iGPU benchmarks

Intel decided to incorporate an updated version of their Arc Xe-LPG tile, which was previously used in the codenamed Meteor Lake mobile processors, into its design. This LPG Plus version is equipped with eXtended Matrix Extensions (XMX) for hardware-enhanced upscaling utilizing the XeSS upscaling technology. While this list of specifications is impressive, it seems that the integrated graphics don’t offer significant capabilities beyond everyday productivity and video rendering in real-world applications.

3DMark’s Time Spy test positions the Core Ultra 9 285K in a range that is comparable to AMD’s Radeon 680M and 780M graphics chiplets found in its Ryzen mobile processors. Although an integrated graphics chip might not be sufficient for avid gamers who demand high performance from their PC games, it can still be disheartening to learn that it may not provide a dependable backup if your dedicated GPU encounters issues or is unavailable.

It appears that at the moment, we don’t have a version of Core Ultra 9 285KF without integrated graphics (iGPU), which means you can’t opt to skip the iGPU and save some money. However, if you engage in video editing using compatible software or apps that handle video codecs, you will still enjoy the benefits of Intel Quick Sync encoding where it’s available. Despite this, it’s worth noting that the performance of this iGPU is not particularly impressive, especially when compared to the significant advancements made by Xe2 on Lunar Lake.

Core Ultra 9 285K: Competition

Competition for the Core Ultra 9 285K depends entirely on the intended audience. If you’re looking for a processor that’ll feed your productivity first and gaming is more of an after-work pastime, then Intel has AMD beat by crushing even the Ryzen 9 9950X. Even if the performance benchmark results were more of a neck-and-neck situation, the 9950X sells for around $710 against the (inflated) $630 of the Ultra 9 285K.

Instead of the Core Ultra 9 285K delivering the cutting-edge performance that passionate gamers might expect, it falls short. The Ryzen 7 7800X3D, priced at approximately $476, seems a better choice given the upcoming Ryzen 9000X3D chip due in November, which is expected to rival the current top-tier status in PC gaming. Therefore, investing in Team Red’s 3D V-Cache technology appears to be a wiser decision.

After addressing the issue with the microcode bug on 14th Gen processors, I can tentatively suggest a slightly older Core i9-14900K, currently available at a discount of around $443. However, it’s not my first choice. Given that my computer use is predominantly for productivity rather than gaming, energy efficiency becomes more important for the desktop I’m building, which runs continuously throughout the day. While gamers may not prioritize power efficiency as much, they typically focus more on raw performance.

Core Ultra 9 285K: Should you buy?

You should buy this if …

✅ You want an ultra-efficient high-end CPU.

✅ You’re upgrading from Intel 12th Gen CPUs or even earlier.

You should not buy this if …

❌ You’re a hardcore gamer craving the highest framerates.

❌ You only dabble in demanding software suites or creative apps.

As a researcher, I don’t just randomly purchase the highest-end processor in a new CPU range. It takes some level of research to decide on such a chip, and not every enthusiast would make this decision without due diligence. Luckily, it’s quite evident that the Core Ultra 9 285K stands out when compared to its AMD Ryzen rival, the 9950X, in terms of benchmark performance. In fact, it leads the charts significantly. Moreover, it offers gaming performance comparable to its previous-gen counterpart, the Core i9-14900K.

Given the context, it’s not very attractive for Intel processor users on the LGA1700 socket to be enticed, as a motherboard update is necessary to accommodate the new LGA1851 replacement. However, if you’re currently using a budget 12th Gen chip and crave a performance boost, this might be worth considering. For everyone else, the Ultra 9 285K caters to those exceptionally creative individuals who opted out of the 12th and 13th Gen due to their limitations, as it can handle intense number-crunching without overheating the CPU.

2024-10-24 18:10