Tuesday, October 8th 2024

Intel's Core Ultra 9 285K Performance Claims Leaked, Doesn't Beat i9-14900K at Gaming

The Chinese tech press is abuzz with slides allegedly from Intel's pre-launch press-deck for the Core Ultra 2-series "Arrow Lake-S." The most sensational of these are Intel's first-party performance claims for the top Core Ultra 9 285K model. There's good news and bad news. Good news first—Intel claims to have made a big leap in energy efficiency with "Arrow Lake," and the 285K should offer gaming performance comparable to the current Core i9-14900K at around 80 W lower power draw for the processor. But then there in lies the bad news—despite claimed IPC gains for the "Lion Cove" P-core, and rumored clock speeds being on par with the "Raptor Cove" P-cores on the i9-14900K, the 285K is barely any faster than its predecessor in absolute terms.

In its first party testing, when averaged across 12 game tests, which we used Google optical translation to make out the titles of, Intel used performance numbers of the i9-14900K as the mean. The 285K beats the i9-14900K in only four games—Warhammer 40K: Space Marine 2, Age of Mythology Retold, Civilization VI: Gathering Storm, and F1 23. It's on-par with the i9-14900K in Red Dead Redemption 2, Total War: Pharaoh, Metro Exodus, Cyberpunk 2077, Black Myth: Wukong, Rainbow Six Siege. It's slower than the i9-14900K in Far Cry 6, FF XIV, F1 24, Red Dead Redemption 2. Averaged across this bench, the Core Ultra 9 285K ends up roughly on par with the Core i9-14900K in gaming. Intel also compared the 285K to AMD's Ryzen 9 9950X, and interestingly, even the Ryzen 9 7950X3D.
The Ryzen 9 7950X3D isn't AMD's fastest gaming processor (which is the 7800X3D), but Intel chose this so it could compare the 285K across both gaming and productivity workloads. The 285K is shown being significantly slower than the 7950X3D in Far Cry 6 and Cyberpunk 2077. It's on par in Assassin's Creed Shadows and CIV 6 Gathering Storm. It only gets ahead in Rainbow Six Siege. Then there's the all important comparison with the current AMD flagship, the Ryzen 9 9950X "Zen 5." The 9950X is shown being on-par or beating the 285K in 8 out of 12 game tests. And the 9950X is the regular version of "Zen 5," without the 3D V-cache.

All is not doom and gloom for the Core Ultra 9 285K, the significant IPC gains Intel made for the "Skymont" E-cores means that the 285K gets significantly ahead of the 7950X3D in multithreaded productivity workloads, as shown with Geekbench 4.3, Cinebench 2024, and POV-Ray.
Sources: VideoCardz, Wxnod (Twitter)
Add your own comment

114 Comments on Intel's Core Ultra 9 285K Performance Claims Leaked, Doesn't Beat i9-14900K at Gaming

#26
zorandesign
May I ask - which 14900K is it 'roughly equal to' : the one before the latest microcode update or the one after it? I am asking for a friend.
Posted on Reply
#27
Konceptz
Lifeless222It's Over. AMD win....
"All is not doom and gloom for the Core Ultra 9 285K, the significant IPC gains Intel made for the "Skymont" E-cores means that the 285K gets significantly ahead of the 7950X3D in multithreaded productivity workloads, as shown with Geekbench 4.3, Cinebench 2024, and POV-Ray."

Missed that part huh? Oh that's right, gaming is the only metric that matters in a CPU's performance.
Posted on Reply
#28
Darkholm
Konceptz"All is not doom and gloom for the Core Ultra 9 285K, the significant IPC gains Intel made for the "Skymont" E-cores means that the 285K gets significantly ahead of the 7950X3D in multithreaded productivity workloads, as shown with Geekbench 4.3, Cinebench 2024, and POV-Ray."

Missed that part huh? Oh that's right, gaming is the only metric that matters in a CPU's performance.
Looks like it. Zen 5 is also a "failure" due to the same thing.
Posted on Reply
#29
SL2
Konceptz"All is not doom and gloom for the Core Ultra 9 285K, the significant IPC gains Intel made for the "Skymont" E-cores means that the 285K gets significantly ahead of the 7950X3D in multithreaded productivity workloads, as shown with Geekbench 4.3, Cinebench 2024, and POV-Ray."
How the fuck is Ge3kbench a productivity workload? It's a benchmark, and not really a reliable one either.
KonceptzMissed that part huh? Oh that's right, gaming is the only metric that matters in a CPU's performance.
Missed that title, huh?
Intel's Core Ultra 9 285K Performance Claims Leaked, Doesn't Beat i9-14900K at Gaming
No wonder people focus on games.

It's a win for AMD, for him. Maybe not for you. Nothing wrong with that.
Posted on Reply
#30
phanbuey
DarkholmLooks like it. Zen 5 is also a "failure" due to the same thing.
Tons of gamers, not many "power users".
Posted on Reply
#31
rv8000
No official benchmarks yet, but pretty much where I expected it to be a few months ago. It was either lower power at the same performance or more performance at the same power. Efficiency doesn’t even seem that much better though.
Posted on Reply
#32
Konceptz
DarkholmLooks like it. Zen 5 is also a "failure" due to the same thing.
Agreed, this is Intel's 5% moment. Increased energy efficiency appears to be the primary goal here.
Posted on Reply
#33
thepath
This is disappointing if this is true

Basically 285K is 14900K with lower power consumption.
Posted on Reply
#34
Hardware1906
i guess the trend this year is "same perf but less power" huh?
i wont be surprised if nvidia follows this trend too :skull:
Posted on Reply
#35
Konceptz
SL2How the fuck is Ge3kbench a productivity workload? It's a benchmark, and not really a reliable one either.


Missed that title, huh?

No wonder people focus on games.

It's a win for AMD, for him. Maybe not for you. Nothing wrong with that.
Geekbench matters when AMD is topping the charts somehow.... Carry on fanboy.
Posted on Reply
#36
SL2
KonceptzGeekbench matters when AMD is topping the charts somehow.... Carry on fanboy.
Oh, spicy!

GBench never matters. If you think it does, and also expect forum members to agree on everything.. well, welcome to the internet. No need for name calling. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#37
Beginner Macro Device
Unpopular opinion: the most horrible thing about this new Core Ultra 9 285K is its name.
Posted on Reply
#38
SL2
Beginner Macro DeviceUnpopular opinion: the most horrible thing about this new Core Ultra 9 285K is its name.
I dunno, I'm glad they're back to hundreds. The ultra part is not needed, but it's better than AI I guess lol

Imagine Core Ai7 15700K, people would lose their shit, me included.
Posted on Reply
#39
Beginner Macro Device
SL2The ultra part is
It's like those "cool" magazines from forever ago targeting young audience. Then, it was kinda okay due to it being a bit uncharted. Today, it's no better than harassing your parole officer.

"Core iX" might have been very old and might have become boring but it's both short, sound and unique. And it makes sense to wide public!

This new naming system will only confuse the buyers which in spite of won't result in better sells.
Posted on Reply
#40
Solaris17
Super Dainty Moderator
Did it do this at 80w though? Because that would be pretty wild.

Edit: ah 80w lower. That’s still pretty crazy power efficiency over what they’ve had.
Posted on Reply
#41
Beginner Macro Device
Solaris17Did it do this at 80w though? Because that would be pretty wild.
The slide suggests it being 80 W less than in 14900K, not 80 W overall.
Posted on Reply
#42
SL2
Beginner Macro DeviceThis new naming system will only confuse the buyers which in spite of won't result in better sells.
You don't see a reason for Intel wanting to signal a shift in product characteristics, just this time around? ;)

This is not as if breaking namning converntion after 8700K, that would have been insane.

Right now they have a reputation of selling crazy hot CPU's, and added to that there's hardware degradation as well.

It's not like they want to, I think they have to. Also, five digits is silly.
Posted on Reply
#43
Beginner Macro Device
SL2You don't see a reason for Intel wanting to signal a shift in product characteristics
Aware buyers: "Welp, it's still Intel."
Unaware buyers: "Welp, it's still Intel."
SL2Right now they have a reputation of selling crazy hot CPU
They decided on the name change before going full bozo with heating specifications. I don't mind name changing, I mind changing it to this prematurity.
SL2there's hardware degradation as well.
Well, yeah, name change will be some truly remarkable absolution fuel in this case!
SL2Also, five digits is silly.
I have no trouble counting. Might take a little time to say it out loud but not like "Core Ultra 9" contributes to time savings any better than good ol' "Core i9."
Posted on Reply
#44
SL2
Beginner Macro DeviceThey decided on the name change before going full bozo with heating specifications.
Did they?
Beginner Macro DeviceI mind changing it to this prematurity.
How do you measure that lol.

Also,
Buyers who love the name: "Welp, it's still Intel."
Buyers who hate the name: "Welp, it's still Intel."
Beginner Macro DeviceWell, yeah, name change will be some truly remarkable absolution fuel in this case!
No one ever said it was. :rolleyes: Intel dropped Pentium 4/D and AMD dropped FX, water under the bridge. No need to reply here, I'm not comparing the products.
Beginner Macro DeviceI have no trouble counting. Might take a little time to say it out loud but not like "Core Ultra 9" contributes to time savings any better than good ol' "Core i9."
Is there a reason for even saying the full name, for end users? Is this a problem or just OCD?

When I see 13600K in a post it's enough info for me.
Posted on Reply
#45
T4C Fantasy
CPU & GPU DB Maintainer
usinameThis is before or after the castration of the 14900k with baseline and patches? Imagine if they didn't remove the HT, Arrow Lake would have been on par with Alder Lake from 2021

On the next Q-report Pat will be like:

As I walk through the valley of the silicon and tech
I take a look at my company and realize there's nothin' alright
'Cause I've been crying and begging' for so long that
Even my momma thinks that my career is gone
Tech Paradise

If you downlock the 14900k to what the 285k is wouldnt it be around the same watts?
Posted on Reply
#46
Upgrayedd
I'm curious how no HT will be in games. Much better 1% lows? Maybe less stutter in certain games? I'm actually happy about the removal of HT.
Posted on Reply
#47
Darc Requiem
thepathThis is disappointing if this is true

Basically 285K is 14900K with lower power consumption.
I can't claim to have come up with this but I've seen people post that AMD has given us Zen 5% and Intel has responded with Core Ultra -2.85%
Posted on Reply
#48
phanbuey
mikesgIsn't there a latency advantage by removing HT?

That's important for gamers, and sound engineers.
There is but it might be counteracted by the latency of the thread getting redirected to and from the e cores.
Posted on Reply
#49
Karti
So the overall PC power draw got dropped by 80W, and lost only 2-3FPS to "probably same build" but with 14900k?

if that same thing will be proven by 3rd party reviewers, then it is really a nice thing
Posted on Reply
#50
efikkan
DavenDesktop gains are slowing down generation to generation as the industry focuses on data centers and AI.
This is quite annoying, just as interesting architectural improvements that may offer significant performance uplifts are on the horizon, the main focus is diverted towards the "AI" gimmicks (yes, I know there are real uses for it). All of these companies (incl. Nvidia) are likely to pay a price for jumping on the bandwagon once someone is successful in creating tiny specialized ASICs for various "AI" markets.
Lifeless222It's Over. AMD win....
How come?
Intel and AMD are practically dead even in gaming (1440p/4K) with their respective current generations; Intel has faster cores while AMD makes up for it with loads of L3 cache. AMD is far more energy efficient (which may save you on cooling too), but since the benefits of 3D V-Cache is really a hit and miss, no one knows for sure whether this will continue to scale with future games. But in practice, it's pretty much on par as long as you select one of the higher SKUs from either vendor, especially if you're buying a mid-range GPU anyways. It's not like in the old Bulldozer days, or even Zen 1 days, where you missed out on a lot of performance.

And when it comes to applications, as usual it depends on your use case. Most buyers shouldn't base their purchasing decisions on "average/aggregated performance", and especially not from synthetic benchmarks.
mikesgIsn't there a latency advantage by removing HT?

That's important for gamers, and sound engineers.
Game engines don't scale indefinitely with faster CPUs. If you look at individual games, you'll see some games are already the bottleneck for many current CPUs, so we shouldn't expect faster CPUs to scale significantly further in those games. Eventually we will probably see some games get patched and new games arrive. This is fairly similar to the Skylake-family years; for a while there was a "plateau" in many games with CPUs boosting to ~4.5 GHz.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 14th, 2024 05:38 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts