• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

Well, let me be the first to say.....

RIP Intel

Especially after the 9800X3D comes out next month. Other than that, I think my 'AMD Ryzen 7 7700' CPU will last me for many more years to come :clap:.
 
Last edited:
What happened to the gaming performance...

I thought the absolutely massive L2 and L3 would pull them through. How are they advertising equal gaming performance to the 14900K? It can't even match vanilla Zen 4, let alone Zen 5..

Productivity performance is good though, trades blows with 9950X with some being clearly faster/slower. Gaming performance is a bloodbath though, AMD pretty much have no incentive to release 9800X3D or price it fairly.
 
Phoronix saw improved performance in Linux, but even there we see some regressions (image below is edited from the original for easier comparison).

1729786043181.png
 
The 285K not even beating 13600K in some scenarios tells us that something is wrong with these CPUs at the moment.
 
AnarchoPrimitiv said:
When you say 5%? What are you referring? Gaming only?
Click to expand...

I didn't come up with that term the internet did, but Yes, although in every application I use my cpu for it was equally unimpressive.

Not gonna take credit for that one.

But that's just the general nickname for Zen 5
 
Squared said:
I don't understand how running all platforms on DDR5-6000 is fair. Part of the benefit of a new platform is higher supported memory speed. Ryzen 9000 series uses the same memory controller as the 7000 series, so in that sense it's not a new platform.
Click to expand...

This is a CPU review so it makes sense that it tries to isolate for the CPU as much as possible. Memory performance comparisons will be done in a different article and through various other sources.

Squared said:
When I experimented with running higher memory speeds than my Ryzen 1800X CPU supports, I experienced no issues during memory stress testing, but then when I actually used the system it would crash randomly. Therefore as a user, if I were buying a Ryzen 9000 series processor today, I would run it on DDR5 5600 memory. But if I were buying a new Core 200 series, I would run it on DDR5 6400. So seeing both at DDR5 6000 isn't as informative as I would like.
Click to expand...

This is purely a you issue if you refuse to update your perception of what memory speed AMD processors are capable of running based on a 4 generation old example. Every source will tell you to run 6000 but sure, you do you I guess.
 
darkangel0504 said:
No, it doesn't. Zen 5 is insanely fast in server, AMD got 16 core CCD but they didn't bring to consumer segment. They want to make more profit by selling CPUs in EPYC and Threadripper label.
Click to expand...
Faster in server. But that's not due to ILP or higher clock rates but from better SMT throughput.
 
Oh dear, it's not a gaming chip is it.

At least 24 cores at ~235W is faster in raw encode/render/synthetic tests than 16 cores of the 9950X at ~220W, though that really shouldn't come as much of a surprise to anyone.

Maybe now AMD will stop limiting consumer CPUs to 16 cores, since they're finally losing the core count race again!
 
Power consumption is still way too high considering the performance, clocks, removal of SMT and the better node they're on, I don't know how they achieved this but it's not looking good.

Chrispy_ said:
Maybe now AMD will stop limiting consumer CPUs to 16 cores, since they're finally losing the core count race again!
Click to expand...
Why would they do that since it takes 50% more cores for Intel to barely be any faster.
 
Chrispy_ said:
Oh dear, it's not a gaming chip is it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but did you see some of the graphs for productivity? It's losing in Microsoft Office and antivirus.
 
Alright, my setup will last for another generation
 
Vya Domus said:
Power consumption is still way too high considering the performance, clocks, removal of SMT and the better node they're on, I don't know how they achieved this but it's not looking good.
Click to expand...
DLVR power loss 1.5 input vs 1.2 V output results in 50 W loss as resistance.
 
Intel
tenor.gif


Gamers

ellipses.gif
 
R0H1T said:
That's because AM4 still exists!
Click to expand...
Yeah and, if anything, Intel have just helped it maintain a value proposition / competitive lifespan for that bit longer... It just won't die because nobody has effectively 'killed it'.

SOAREVERSOR said:
Most people do not care about gaming. Gaming is not the point of computing. This is like saying axel grease isn't as good for jerking off as lube. It's technically correct, but one is an important activity and the other is just jacking off.
Click to expand...

Quote of the week so far... :laugh:


Anyway, based on what I've seen I'm thinking price cuts incoming very quickly... Unless some BIOS firmware updates shake things up a bit...
 
Where Zen 5 reminded me of Ivy Bridge this reminds me of Bulldozer.
 
No AVX512 support boggles my mind. Power consumption might be the reason, idk.
Feeling real good about my $270 9600X right now. I hope they can manage some sales in AI hardware cause that's the only reason to buy this architecture, so far. We do need Intel to make viable chips for a healthy market.
 
Rocket lake v2.0... Efficiency generally worse than Zen 4/5 even with 3nm vs 4/5nm...
 
I heard whispers that hardware scheduler isn't updated in windows yet.
For gaming I'd want to all core's locked and decent memory tuning for gaming before I judge them. But even with that I'm not expecting miracles.
 
Broken Processor said:
I heard whispers that hardware scheduler isn't updated in windows yet.
Click to expand...
I don't know how that would be the case considering the architecture has been simplified.
 
In my opinion intel could get more notice for the needed and achieved about 50% gain in gaming energy efficiency by the 285K and 265K and 20% by the 245K vs. their Raptor Lake pendants.
As with every new microachitecture the known applications will show some ups and downs just because it is differing from the old one, wich was on a suicidal trip sometimes.
For me to be honest, the broader picture shown by W1zzard looks better than i feared before.
 
evernessince said:
This is a CPU review so it makes sense that it tries to isolate for the CPU as much as possible. Memory performance comparisons will be done in a different article and through various other sources.
Click to expand...
Memory performance and CPU performance are tightly connected.
evernessince said:
This is purely a you issue if you refuse to update your perception of what memory speed AMD processors are capable of running based on a 4 generation old example. Every source will tell you to run 6000 but sure, you do you I guess.
Click to expand...
Ryzen 1000 series supports DDR4 2667 single-rank dual-channel 2 DIMMs or DDR4 2400 dual-rank dual-channel 2 DIMMs since the earliest BIOS. Subsequent BIOS updates substantially improved memory support, and reviewers tested much faster memory speeds (https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-analysis/). So I tried running DDR4 3200 dual-rank modules at DDR4 2667. I think that's modest and should offer stability comparable to trying to run DDR5 6000 on a Ryzen 9000 series processor.

The cheapest 32 GB memory is around $91 for DDR5 6400
or $76 for DDR5 5600.
I can't imagine buying a $589 processor and then trying to save $15 by buying memory that was 800 MHz or even just 400 MHz slower.

EDIT: I learned more. The Core 200 series supports DDR5 5600 UDIMM memory or DDR5 6400 CUDIMM memory. I didn't find CUDIMM memory on B&H but Crucial sells a 32 GB kit for $170.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top