Review Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Review: Intel Throws a Lateral with Arrow Lake

[Guardians Bane]

Thanks for the write-up, Paul! IMO, Intel did what AMD did with their 9xxx series: they laid the foundations for future gens, with workstation and server workloads sped up first.

"Sorry gamers, tough luck this round."

I like this: "We also can't help but wonder how a future Intel CPU that incorporates a cache chiplet — similar to AMD's X3D line — might change the picture."
I think we've seen examples how a large cache, when wisely implemented, can benefit workloads from both AMD and Intel before.

That's the way I'm seeing these CPUs from both Intel and AMD. They got the new architecture ground work done and dusted for now. But I have a feeling both companies will be bringing in something better next round. I am probably going with a 7000series CPU for this next build/upgrade. Then see what both bring for next gen CPUs. I am definitely not going with Intel this time. No sign of any upgrade path for the platform.

 

[YSCCC]

Yeah, but if someone wants to stick with Intel, it's not bad. But why they'd upgrade to this platform with no known upgrade path is weird to me. I'm definitely going with an AM5 system for my next build now.

Or maybe one just have too much money to spend and wannat tout the CUDIMM 10000 MT/s figures, who knows.

 

[Guardians Bane]

Considering that it's both a major new microarchitecture and made on a two generations newer process node that Apple has already proven, it's quite dismal.

We should be seeing an improvement a little more like more like Gen 11 -> Gen 12, not this.

While they s is indeed underwhelming, and more so than Zen5, I have a feeling that both platforms are just getting the new architecture groundwork done in this gen of CPUs. I have a feeling both will be bringing something much better on the next set of CPUs.

I could be completely wrong. But if I upgrade to 7000series this time, I think Zen6 will be a much better upgrade. Def not getting my hopes too high though. But Zen5 is certainly more promising than Intel this time.

 

[TheHerald]

That's the way I'm seeing these CPUs from both Intel and AMD. They got the new architecture ground work done and dusted for now. But I have a feeling both companies will be bringing in something better next round. I am probably going with a 7000series CPU for this next build/upgrade. Then see what both bring for next gen CPUs. I am definitely not going with Intel this time. No sign of any upgrade path for the platform.

Am5 doesn't have an upgrade path either. It is not yet clear if zen 6 will be on am5, and even if it was if it ends up another zen5% it's going to be meaningless.

I prefer the 285k over the 9950x cause it seems a lot more efficient in everyday tasks and gaming while being as performant and as efficient in heavier workloads. The 9950x is still great, but for my uses cases the 285k seems better.

 

[Guardians Bane]

Or maybe one just have too much money to spend and wannat tout the CUDIMM 10000 MT/s figures, who knows.

Lol... Sounds like me with AMD mini PCs ... I buy them up quick and just play around with them and compare them in benchmarks. Do I need 4 mini PCs all running AMD? Nope ...

Do I enjoy spending my money on this tech hobby?

Absolutely! Lmao... Plus I'm about to start an AM5 build soon!

So I can understand people who spend money to have something to tinker with on the new Intel platform. I got nothing against Intel, I have a system with them now too. Just more of a fun thing with AMD for me.

 

[Guardians Bane]

Am5 doesn't have an upgrade path either. It is not yet clear if zen 6 will be on am5, and even if it was if it ends up another zen5% it's going to be meaningless.

I prefer the 285k over the 9950x cause it seems a lot more efficient in everyday tasks and gaming while being as performant and as efficient in heavier workloads. The 9950x is still great, but for my uses cases the 285k seems better.

Yep, I hear ya on getting what suites our needs best. That's why I'm not going with Zen5 for my next build. It will be the 7000 series. But AMD has given strong inferences to having anither gen on AM5. They've all but come out and said it. So with my needs and looking for something that has a better chance for at least one upgrade, I'm going with AM5 as a platform. Either way, I still like that both companies went with an efficiency foundation this time. I have a feeling we will be seeing something good come the next round of CPUs from both!

 

[usertests]

Yeah, but if someone wants to stick with Intel, it's not bad. But why they'd upgrade to this platform with no known upgrade path is weird to me. I'm definitely going with an AM5 system for my next build now.

Nobody knows for sure because Intel hasn't committed, but I think they will launch a desktop variation of Panther Lake with a new P-core on the socket.

If they don't, it's too bad but not the end of the world for the adopters.

 

[Guardians Bane]

Nobody knows for sure because Intel hasn't committed, but I think they will launch a desktop variation of Panther Lake with a new P-core on the socket.

If they don't, it's too bad but not the end of the world for the adopters.

I agree. I say get what works best for you and enjoy it! If it happens to be Ultra 200 series, go for it. I'm not. Lol... I'm going to go AM5 this time.

 

[TheHerald]

Yep, I hear ya on getting what suites our needs best. That's why I'm not going with Zen5 for my next build. It will be the 7000 series. But AMD has given strong inferences to having anither gen on AM5. They've all but come out and said it. So with my needs and looking for something that has a better chance for at least one upgrade, I'm going with AM5 as a platform. Either way, I still like that both companies went with an efficiency foundation this time. I have a feeling we will be seeing something good come the next round of CPUs from both!

The graph they released about the am5 support says new CPUs until 2026, but they don't mention zen6. Which to my mind means - seeing how competition goes - we might or might not. If it was set in stone there'd be no reason for them not to include it in their presentation. It would boost am5 sales one would think.

But yeah, both zen 5 and AL looks like they are in "beta" phase with the next generation being a leap ahead, kinda like zen 1.

 

[YSCCC]

Lol... Sounds like me with AMD mini PCs ... I buy them up quick and just play around with them and compare them in benchmarks. Do I need 4 mini PCs all running AMD? Nope ...

Do I enjoy spending my money on this tech hobby?

Absolutely! Lmao... Plus I'm about to start an AM5 build soon!

So I can understand people who spend money to have something to tinker with on the new Intel platform. I got nothing against Intel, I have a system with them now too. Just more of a fun thing with AMD for me.

I personally liked tinkering PCs to optimize and squeeze out the performance when it ages, but not from the exp for the upgrading from 12700KF to 14900K, all the thinkering is to not letting it to be a bloody heater in tropical climate, and then later found out the suicidal trend of V/F behaviour for it. That's when I start getting skeptical for recent intel products.

Yep, I hear ya on getting what suites our needs best. That's why I'm not going with Zen5 for my next build. It will be the 7000 series. But AMD has given strong inferences to having anither gen on AM5. They've all but come out and said it. So with my needs and looking for something that has a better chance for at least one upgrade, I'm going with AM5 as a platform. Either way, I still like that both companies went with an efficiency foundation this time. I have a feeling we will be seeing something good come the next round of CPUs from both!

IIRC they did come out and say they are targeted to continue for 4 generations on AM5, which means likely till Zen7, and at worst case, new CPUs are still available till 2027, so at least something faster to replace your dead CPU could be expected, or at least let the platform survive longer for the longer run instead of e-waste, the board prices nowadays is really difficult to justify if one arn't able to keep it running with buyable replacements after like 3 years.

 

[TheHerald]

After checking every single review that has thorough power draw numbers on multiple workloads..

1) It is on par with the 9950x in both MT and MT efficiency

2) On par in gaming but with way lower power draw than the 9950x. Like way lower. Up to half the power in some games, lol.

3) Much more efficient in mixed workloads (autocad, browsing, semi idle, idle etc.) That part is impressive, since the main reason AMD has horrible light load efficiency was the multiple chiplets. Seems like ARL doesn't suffer that same issue somehow. Good to know I won't need 70w just to browse the web I guess.

It is of course disappointing in terms of what we expected after 2 years, but so is the 9950x but it was still the GOAT until yesterday. Now the 285k takes the cake until the 9950x 3d releases and is put to the test.

 

[orodruin]

FIASCO.
Intel 15th Generation New Core Ultra Processes are a complete Fiasco, no offense to anyone.
It is nothing more than a revised version of the 14th generation with the addition of an NPU section, and a slightly reduced power consumption. I have been assembling systems and working with hardware for 25 years, and I have never seen Intel like this.
Moreover, it is said that the socket will be supported until the end of 2025, which is complete nonsense.
There is absolutely no need for a person who has an undegraded 14th generation or 13th generation or even 12th generation Intel Core i9 or i7 to switch. I am not even talking about those with AMD 7950X3D, 7900X3D, 7800X3D Ryzen processors.

 

[halfcharlie]

Anyone complaining about 'gaming performance' or that it'll make anyone choose either Intel/AMD, or even have any effect on actual gaming is a fool. Look at other reviews with more comprehensive gaming benchmarks and chip roster. As I've been saying the entire time, if you are making a CPU purchase decision based on gaming you are clueless. A half-decade old 11th gen i5 gets 90% of the gaming performance of either the 285K or 9950X, at higher resolutions there's only like 3 FPS difference between 20 different CPUs from across 5 years. Gaming is not the reason for purchasing/upgrading a CPU, or judging them. GPU is obviously where your money goes if that's what you care about.

If anything, the biggest reason for upgrading is motherboard features.

 

[kfceater]

FIASCO.
Intel 15th Generation New Core Ultra Processes are a complete Fiasco, no offense to anyone.
It is nothing more than a revised version of the 14th generation with the addition of an NPU section, and a slightly reduced power consumption. I have been assembling systems and working with hardware for 25 years, and I have never seen Intel like this.
Moreover, it is said that the socket will be supported until the end of 2025, which is complete nonsense.
There is absolutely no need for a person who has an undegraded 14th generation or 13th generation or even 12th generation Intel Core i9 or i7 to switch. I am not even talking about those with AMD 7950X3D, 7900X3D, 7800X3D Ryzen processors.

NaBrO, 285k is extremely good for productivity/office use. it is mid for gaming though.

 

[Kotanae]

This is exactly what TPU started doing in their reviews and it consistently shows Zen4/5 using 20W+ more than Intel.

Those +20 watts come from X670E chipset being power hungry.
If you go with B650, idle power is in line with Intel at around 50W.

For some reason this never gets mentioned in the reviews.

 

[irish_adam]

After checking every single review that has thorough power draw numbers on multiple workloads..

1) It is on par with the 9950x in both MT and MT efficiency

2) On par in gaming but with way lower power draw than the 9950x. Like way lower. Up to half the power in some games, lol.

3) Much more efficient in mixed workloads (autocad, browsing, semi idle, idle etc.) That part is impressive, since the main reason AMD has horrible light load efficiency was the multiple chiplets. Seems like ARL doesn't suffer that same issue somehow. Good to know I won't need 70w just to browse the web I guess.

It is of course disappointing in terms of what we expected after 2 years, but so is the 9950x but it was still the GOAT until yesterday. Now the 285k takes the cake until the 9950x 3d releases and is put to the test.

I think the problem people are having with your justification is that you haven't explained why you think low power and ST efficiency actually matters?

The ram alone that Intel provided for the reviewers costs twice what the ram for the AMD system costs. Even if you used your pc 24 hours a day doing light loads it would take you a decade of energy savings just to break even on the RAM.

If you care so much about gaming AND need that much MT performance you'd be far better off waiting for the 9950X3D in January. Especially as the Intel platform is currently unusable from a productivity standpoint and looks like it's going to need some stability updates which will take time.

 

[YSCCC]

NaBrO, 285k is extremely good for productivity/office use. it is mid for gaming though.

Productivity is fine, but office?? What office usage even need a remotely new CPU… most office work literally only do MS office…

 

[AndrewJacksonZA]

Productivity is fine, but office?? What office usage even need a remotely new CPU… most office work literally only do MS office…

I'll go out on a limb and say that you've never had to pry a 1.5GB excel sheet from an end-user's hands and convince execs that they need a data warehousing solution.

 

[logainofhades]

Anyone complaining about 'gaming performance' or that it'll make anyone choose either Intel/AMD, or even have any effect on actual gaming is a fool. Look at other reviews with more comprehensive gaming benchmarks and chip roster. As I've been saying the entire time, if you are making a CPU purchase decision based on gaming you are clueless. A half-decade old 11th gen i5 gets 90% of the gaming performance of either the 285K or 9950X, at higher resolutions there's only like 3 FPS difference between 20 different CPUs from across 5 years. Gaming is not the reason for purchasing/upgrading a CPU, or judging them. GPU is obviously where your money goes if that's what you care about.

If anything, the biggest reason for upgrading is motherboard features.

There are some games that truly do care about CPU, to where it does matter. For instance, I play WoW. A 5800x3d is capable of achieving nearly double the FPS vs an 11600k, with 1% lows higher than the average for said 11600k. When I was running my AM4 rig, I saw a significant boost to min FPS, going from a 3700x to a 5800x, with an RTX 2060, at 1440p, with a lot less stutter in situations of 40+ man outdoor world boss ecounters, 40v40 PVP, and 25 man raids.

Microsoft Flight Sim is another where the x3d dominates everything.

Not everyone plays AAA , GPU heavy titles.

 

[YSCCC]

I'll go out on a limb and say that you've never had to pry a 1.5GB excel sheet from an end-user's hands and convince execs that they need a data warehousing solution.

🤣tried something similar once, but that using a i9 won’t practically make any difference

 

[TheHerald]

I think the problem people are having with your justification is that you haven't explained why you think low power and ST efficiency actually matters?

Because if everything else is the same, why would they not matter? I wouldnt like my CPU hitting 70w browsing the web.

The ram alone that Intel provided for the reviewers costs twice what the ram for the AMD system costs. Even if you used your pc 24 hours a day doing light loads it would take you a decade of energy savings just to break even on the RAM.

What ram? There are review that tested both with the same ram. A 7200mhz ram kit that most review used costs 99$ for 32 gb. So what twice as much are you talking about?

If you care so much about gaming AND need that much MT performance you'd be far better off waiting for the 9950X3D in January. Especially as the Intel platform is currently unusable from a productivity standpoint and looks like it's going to need some stability updates which will take time.

Sure, I've said already that I'd the 9950x 3d doesnt have the same issue that you need to completely turn off 1 ccd for games, itd be great. Until that releases and is tested though I consider the 285k the GOAT.

 

[TheHerald]

There are some games that truly do care about CPU, to where it does matter. For instance, I play WoW. A 5800x3d is capable of achieving nearly double the FPS vs an 11600k, with 1% lows higher than the average for said 11600k. When I was running my AM4 rig, I saw a significant boost to min FPS, going from a 3700x to a 5800x, with an RTX 2060, at 1440p, with a lot less stutter in situations of 40+ man outdoor world boss ecounters, 40v40 PVP, and 25 man raids.

Microsoft Flight Sim is another where the x3d dominates everything.

Not everyone plays AAA , GPU heavy titles.

And there are games like spiderman were the 285k dominates everything. Those are what we call outliers, they are meaningless for most people unless they specifically play that particular one game 24/7. Most people I'd assume play a variety of games and that's why they look at the averages. On average the 7800x 3d is what, 10-15% faster than the normal 7950x?

 

[irish_adam]

Because if everything else is the same, why would they not matter? I wouldnt like my CPU hitting 70w browsing the web.


What ram? There are review that tested both with the same ram. A 7200mhz ram kit that most review used costs 99$ for 32 gb. So what twice as much are you talking about?


Sure, I've said already that I'd the 9950x 3d doesnt have the same issue that you need to completely turn off 1 ccd for games, itd be great. Until that releases and is tested though I consider the 285k the GOAT.

Would you have made the same argument about power before this generation of Intel I wonder? It seems you are clutching at the most minor of wins to make this an overall win for intel which is just crazy bias for a chip that currently doesn't even work properly.

Also the Ram is not the same, while TH used 7200 they also used the cudimm 8200 which is what I was referring too as that is what Intel supplied to be used and was used by nearly all the reviewers. The AMD system used 6000.

As for the 7950X3D CCD issue, isn't that already fixed? I can't see why they would introduce the same issue if they already fixed it.

 

[JayNor]

Every few years, TechPowerUp tests PCIe scaling of a few dozen games and high-end graphics cards. So far, games show only marginal benefits from PCIe 4.0 x16. Intel really jumped the gun on PCIe 5.0.

​

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 PCI-Express Scaling

The new NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is a graphics card powerhouse, but what happens when you run it on a PCI-Express 4.0 x8 bus? In our mini-review we've also tested various PCI-Express 3.0, 2.0 and 1.1 configs to get a feel for how FPS scales with bandwidth.

www.techpowerup.com

​

The main benefit would be the ability to run two cards at PCIe 5.0 x8, except multi-GPU support among games is reportedly very rare and rough.


Yes. So far, a handful of GPU compute apps are the main beneficiaries of PCIe 4.0. They'll probably show a bit further speedup from PCIe 5.0.

A "bit further" could be applied to 300FPS vs 60FPS for gaming. It is arguably meaningless delay.

For AI processing "a bit further" for double pcie data rate will be meaningful delay if parameters are thrashing. Not difficult to prove once the pcie5 GPUs become available. That will reportedly include the coming 50xx series from NVDA.

 

[TheHerald]

Would you have made the same argument about power before this generation of Intel I wonder? It seems you are clutching at the most minor of wins to make this an overall win for intel which is just crazy bias for a chip that currently doesn't even work properly.

Yes, the low power is very important, I've been making the same argument.

Saying I'm biased doesn't make you right. I've made 3 points of why the 285k is better than the 9950x. Are any of them wrong? Do reviews show otherwise?

Also the Ram is not the same, while TH used 7200 they also used the cudimm 8200 which is what I was referring too as that is what Intel supplied to be used and was used by nearly all the reviewers. The AMD system used 6000.

See, this is exactly why you are biased and it shows. The faster 8200 memory made no difference yet you had to throw it in to make an impression that it is a more expensive platform when it isn't. That's textbook definition of bias.

As for the 7950X3D CCD issue, isn't that already fixed? I can't see why they would introduce the same issue if they already fixed it.

It's nothing to be fixed, that's how it is supposed to work. The amd drivers literally turn of one ccd during games. That's how amd fixed the shdeduling issue. On the reviews where you see 7950x 3d being slower than the 7800x 3d it's because they didn't follow the amd guidelines for the CCDs.. The 7950x 3d when installed properly is always faster than the 7800x 3d in games.