• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

LittleBro said:
You did not get my point. Both Zen 5 and Arrow Lake are 2-channel memory destups. AMD can do 8000 MT/s on Zen 5 as well as Intel. Then if Intel gets tested with 8000 MT/s, AMD should be retested as well. AMD's worse scaling per memory speed shows worse IMC than has Intel, this is perfectly okay. Anyway, testing both at same speed, be it 6000 or more MT/s, has a meaning - it disregards impact of the memory speed, which will show pure generational improvements.
Click to expand...
AMDs imc is stronger than Intels. AMD can do around 6400 in 1:1 mode and well over 8000 in 2:1 mode. Intel cant do 1:1 mode at all and shifts to 4:1 mode around 8800+/-. The problem with AMD is that the io-die cant utilize speeds above 6000 in many cases, but in some it can. This is due to the io-die, not the imc :)
 
First my complaint, TPU sometimes puts things in the pros and cons section that I honestly don't think should be there. No longer supports DDR4 I don't think is a con in 2024 seeing as to how cheap you can buy DDR5 memory, sure it means that you can't reuse your old ram but I mean is no DDR4 support a con for both Zen 4 and Zen 5?.

It is an interesting CPU that has carved out some niches although it doesn't blow anything away in those categories though not blowing anything out of the water. I also find it crazy that areas that were a strong point for Intel for a while are now gone, when Ryzen 8 core first came out AMD was winning in things like rendering because they gave you 8 cores when Intel only gave you 4. Though Intel gave you things like full AVX 512 support and was winning and gaming while gaming was slowly taken over by AMD. Now in 2024 no hyper threading, no AVX 512, along with gaming strongly in AMDs hands.

AMD can make some moves to retake those rendering workloads that they are currently losing such as a Zen 5c chip without going to their high end platform. Though I wonder if AMD doesn't want to do that as it will take sales away from their highend platform.
 
Oberon said:
You misspelled "loses outright in gaming and barely has parity in productivity."
Click to expand...
No I didn't. I deliberately sidestepped it because while it's not the ultimate winner at games, it's not even close to the loser either. It's legitimately in the top 2% of gaming CPU models. People seem to be missing that context. When we factor in the area's it wins at, this CPU is a performance win overall.

Your failure to see the big picture is your problem, along with anyone pandering the same notion.

EDIT: That's it? A laugh? That's all you got? Figures.

EDIT2:
Jay has the following to say;
I might just wait until the end of the year.
 
Last edited:
lexluthermiester said:
No I didn't. I deliberately sidestepped it because while it's not the ultimate winner at games, it's not even close to the loser either. It's legitimately in the top 2% of gaming CPU models. People seem to be missing that context. When we factor in the area's it wins at, this CPU is a performance win overall.

Your failure to see the big picture is your problem, along with anyone pandering the same notion.

EDIT: That's it? A laugh? That's all you got? Figures.

EDIT2:
Jay has the following to say;
I might just wait until the end of the year.
Click to expand...
If he tuned the 14900K and 7800X3D the same they would also get a nice boost. All cpus respond well to ram-tuning, but some cpus respond better than others. If he tuned a i5 245K it would get more from it due to low L3 cache. If he tuned a 7800X3D it would gain less due to very high L3 cache. A comparison i2hard made shows that 7800X3D gets a 9% avg fps boost from 6000 xmp to 7600 tuned. 14700K gets a 15% boost frpm 6000 xmp to 7800 tuned.
 
lexluthermiester said:
No I didn't. I deliberately sidestepped it because while it's not the ultimate winner at games, it's not even close to the loser either. It's legitimately in the top 2% of gaming CPU models. People seem to be missing that context. When we factor in the area's it wins at, this CPU is a performance win overall.

Your failure to see the big picture is your problem, along with anyone pandering the same notion.

EDIT: That's it? A laugh? That's all you got? Figures.

EDIT2:
Jay has the following to say;
I might just wait until the end of the year.
Click to expand...

Don't bother arguing with them, they have AMD for brains
 
Taraquin said:
If he tuned the 14900K and 7800X3D the same they would also get a nice boost. All cpus respond well to ram-tuning, but some cpus respond better than others. If he tuned a i5 245K it would get more from it due to low L3 cache. If he tuned a 7800X3D it would gain less due to very high L3 cache. A comparison i2hard made shows that 7800X3D gets a 9% avg fps boost from 6000 xmp to 7600 tuned. 14700K gets a 15% boost frpm 6000 xmp to 7800 tuned.
Click to expand...
Don't forget that he also had to overclock the chip to... *checks notes*... not even match the 7800X3D.

The future is bright!
 
doc7000 said:
that I honestly don't think should be there.
Click to expand...
Then I have accomplished my goal, which is to make you aware of things, so you can use your own brain and decide if it matters to you or not :)
 
Taraquin said:
If he tuned the 14900K and 7800X3D the same they would also get a nice boost. All cpus respond well to ram-tuning, but some cpus respond better than others.
Click to expand...
This is true, but only to a point. CUDIMMs are something new and are still being figured out and refined.

Oberon said:
not even match the 7800X3D
Click to expand...
Only in games and then only certain games. There's more to life than gaming. Sooo... You were saying?
 
Last edited:
Disabling HT should gain you 10% performance in games. take that into account and moving the memory phy to the wrong tile is probably 20-30% detrimental to performance and in needs OC memory to do so. For example compression, that benefits from HT, but skymont E-core is a beast that can more than compensate for that and is still left behind. oh well there is more to life than compression.
 
RootinTootinPootin said:
it does, but if you can maintain Gear 2, else its really gonna be slower due to where the IMC is located on the Tile Layout. That is not anything a firmware or BIOS update can fix.
Click to expand...
Jays2cents testing exactly this, and while it does help, its marginal in most cases. You have to over clock the cache fabric bus and the E-cores to get a meaningfull difference. And even after all that, it still slower than the 7800X3D in most titles. He has also tested the 9800X3D and as expected, it basically murders the 285k. So what I will be waiting for is how Amd have installed the 3Dvcache on the 9900X (as in cach on both CCD's, so we dont see the same core/latenencey nonsense as we do with the 7900X3D.
 
lexluthermiester said:
This is true, but only to a point. CUDIMMs are something new and are still being figured out and refined.


Only in games and then only certain games. There's more to life than gaming. Sooo... You were saying?
Click to expand...
Even the gaming performance is pretty decent. Basically it performs identical to the 9950x in games but with a lot lower power draw. In MT workloads performance and efficiency is a wash between the two, it entirely depends on your workloads. If you are just a gamer obviously this CPU isn't for you and neither is the 9950x so yeah, whatever.
 
Intel has lost the PC Gaming Performance crown since ZEN was launched.
Now they've been booted off the Stock Market. Bad news for PC Gaming in general, because AMD & Intel need to compete in a fair manner.
The last thing this industry needs is ARM entering the desktop business, if this move ever was to happen, PC Gaming as we know it would die off.
 
Super XP said:
Intel has lost the PC Gaming Performance crown since ZEN was launched.
Click to expand...
No it didn't. That is a bold-faced lie. It's that or you haven't been paying attention to the benchmarks for the last 8 years. Intel may not be the CURRENT king of the gaming hill, but Ryzen didn't dethrone them until Zen2 and then they got it back swiftly thereafter. I'm not saying Ryzen doesn't kick ass, because it does. But the statement like the one you just made are so far beyond the scope of logic and reason as to be completely bereft of merit.
Super XP said:
Now they've been booted off the Stock Market.
Click to expand...
Yeah, by morons. Wall Street doesn't have the shiniest track record as of late. It's unpleasant, but not the end of the world for Intel.
 
Super XP said:
Intel has lost the PC Gaming Performance crown since ZEN was launched.
Now they've been booted off the Stock Market. Bad news for PC Gaming in general, because AMD & Intel need to compete in a fair manner.
The last thing this industry needs is ARM entering the desktop business, if this move ever was to happen, PC Gaming as we know it would die off.
Click to expand...

Yeah and AMD lost it for the what 10 years before that to intel. Without TSMC AMD would be still losing, and has nothing to do with TSMC also making Intels wafers.
 
Super XP said:
The last thing this industry needs is ARM entering the desktop business, if this move ever was to happen, PC Gaming as we know it would die off.
Click to expand...

The Android mobile gaming market powered by ARM chips is fine and thriving.

FoulOnWhite said:
Yeah and AMD lost it for the what 10 years before that to intel. Without TSMC AMD would be still losing, and has nothing to do with TSMC also making Intels wafers.
Click to expand...

Nope, without TSMC, AMD would be just fine. Because IPC is what matters... so Ryzens can be ported to Samsung, and they will be cheaper and as good.
 
3valatzy said:
The Android mobile gaming market powered by ARM chips is fine and thriving.



Nope, without TSMC, AMD would be just fine. Because IPC is what matters... so Ryzens can be ported to Samsung, and they will be cheaper and as good.
Click to expand...

3D vcache was TSMCs idea, it was basically the 3d vcache chips that are AMDs saviour. Also AMD have no fabs, where would they be without TSMC? Not in the position they are now. But good luck to them all the same, Intel dropped the ball and it bounced into AMDs grasp.
 
doc7000 said:
First my complaint, TPU sometimes puts things in the pros and cons section that I honestly don't think should be there. No longer supports DDR4 I don't think is a con in 2024 seeing as to how cheap you can buy DDR5 memory, sure it means that you can't reuse your old ram but I mean is no DDR4 support a con for both Zen 4 and Zen 5?.

It is an interesting CPU that has carved out some niches although it doesn't blow anything away in those categories though not blowing anything out of the water. I also find it crazy that areas that were a strong point for Intel for a while are now gone, when Ryzen 8 core first came out AMD was winning in things like rendering because they gave you 8 cores when Intel only gave you 4. Though Intel gave you things like full AVX 512 support and was winning and gaming while gaming was slowly taken over by AMD. Now in 2024 no hyper threading, no AVX 512, along with gaming strongly in AMDs hands.

AMD can make some moves to retake those rendering workloads that they are currently losing such as a Zen 5c chip without going to their high end platform. Though I wonder if AMD doesn't want to do that as it will take sales away from their highend platform.
Click to expand...
You said yourself why the con is there, not being able to use DDR4 can be a red line for people. That will probably stop being listed on some future generation, but I think its right it is listed as a con currently, as many people be upgrading from DDR4 systems.
 
fevgatos said:
Basically it performs identical to the 9950x in games
Click to expand...
Er, of all the reviews I have seen, the 285k is almost always below the 9950x or at the bottom of the chart.
 
b1k3rdude said:
Er, of all the reviews I have seen, the 285k is almost always below the 9950x or at the bottom of the chart.
Click to expand...
Really? How about this very review. It's faster than the 7950x and 2% slower than the 9950x. In tom's hardware review there is 0.9 fps difference between the 2 - the 9950x is 0.007% (not a typo, zero zero zero seven) faster. The biggest difference is in hardwareunboxed where the difference climbs to an astronomical 2.45%!

In none of these reviews it's on the bottom of the charts. So, what are you actually talking about man?
 
3valatzy said:
The Android mobile gaming market powered by ARM chips is fine and thriving.



Nope, without TSMC, AMD would be just fine. Because IPC is what matters... so Ryzens can be ported to Samsung, and they will be cheaper and as good.
Click to expand...

And who would be making their wafers? god
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top