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

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The huge leap is efficiency. Especially at lower power, according to the metrics I've seen at 65w it's 50% faster than the 14900k / 9950x.
I'm hoping for more efficiency testing with DLVR bypass for all core loads. If what Roman was seeing when he was testing turns out to be accurate (~40W less power for equal CB23 MT) ARL can destroy everything on the market efficiency wise in bypass mode (of course you lose a lot of efficiency outside of all core). This is obviously a niche scenario, but with all the different levers that can affect ARL I'm very interested in seeing what does what.
 
  • Like
Reactions: helper800

TheHerald

Respectable
BANNED
Feb 15, 2024
1,633
501
2,060
I'm hoping for more efficiency testing with DLVR bypass for all core loads. If what Roman was seeing when he was testing turns out to be accurate (~40W less power for equal CB23 MT) ARL can destroy everything on the market efficiency wise in bypass mode (of course you lose a lot of efficiency outside of all core). This is obviously a niche scenario, but with all the different levers that can affect ARL I'm very interested in seeing what does what.
Sadly bypass mode will be disabled next bios, or so the rumors say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: helper800

TheHerald

Respectable
BANNED
Feb 15, 2024
1,633
501
2,060
Yeah I watched Jay's video discussing it and it seems pretty dumb (the whole temperature lock stuff). I understand not wanting to give people an easy way to kill their CPUs, but long duration all core loads seem like a niche you'd want to let your customers customize for.
Well it was my personal complaint that ecores / cache / pcores don't have a separate rail which absolutely kills efficiency in gaming etc on a 14900k. Dlvr kinda fixes that. But yeah, locking it is super silly, but intel has been burned already so I guess they don't want none of that any more
 

YSCCC

Commendable
Dec 10, 2022
566
460
1,260
The difference is that AMD did it to themselves by effectively lying to everyone with their marketing materials and initial review guide. Intel's marketing slides were pretty much spot on to what reviews saw. It was very obvious that ARL wasn't winning any prizes when it came to gaming and memory latency sensitive workloads.

I don't think Zen 5 is bad at all, but AMD made the launch awful. ARL is pretty much exactly as advertised but everyone's playing the jump on Intel game. Neither one makes sense as an upgrade if you're already on the preceding generation (unless increasing core count or going to X3D from non) and that's fine.
If taking aside the instability and hopefully only scheduling issue, the ARL is a kind of fine release, but what I am on is, Zen 5 was surely, a let down due to AMD over hyping the initial press, but ARL in some cases, like selecting the 7950 X3D for production comparison or so.

The thing I am feeling silly is that they decided to change the branding from Core i to Core Ultra, kind of implying a great leap forward in every aspect just like how pentium goes to Core and then later to Core i, but instead they are only definitely improved on is efficiency, but not the performance even compared to the RPL refresh (sens self destruct), that is a bad start for a brand new shiny branding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thestryker

TheHerald

Respectable
BANNED
Feb 15, 2024
1,633
501
2,060
If taking aside the instability and hopefully only scheduling issue, the ARL is a kind of fine release, but what I am on is, Zen 5 was surely, a let down due to AMD over hyping the initial press, but ARL in some cases, like selecting the 7950 X3D for production comparison or so.

The thing I am feeling silly is that they decided to change the branding from Core i to Core Ultra, kind of implying a great leap forward in every aspect just like how pentium goes to Core and then later to Core i, but instead they are only definitely improved on is efficiency, but not the performance even compared to the RPL refresh (sens self destruct), that is a bad start for a brand new shiny branding.
A letdown / disappointment doesn't make a product bad. The 9950x was a disappointment because it offered minimal gains after 2 years, but obviously it still was the GOAT on release. I mean literally it was the fastest and most efficient chip for MT workloads bar none.

It's like me promising you a billion $ once you turn 18 and then I only give you 500 mil. You'll be disappointed cause you expected more but you are still richer than you were yesterday
 
The thing I am feeling silly is that they decided to change the branding from Core i to Core Ultra, kind of implying a great leap forward in every aspect just like how pentium goes to Core and then later to Core i, but instead they are only definitely improved on is efficiency, but not the performance even compared to the RPL refresh (sens self destruct), that is a bad start for a brand new shiny branding.
The branding is dumb period, but it's the route they decided to go (probably due to Apple) and they normalized it across all CPUs. I suppose it allows them to segment even more: Core Ultra, Core and Processor are all separate segments now. I do understand what you're saying, but the naming is quite frankly meaningless as it is just marketing nonsense.

Let's just all be happy that AMD kept desktop naming instead of going down the idiotic AI naming route that they did with laptop CPUs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: helper800

YSCCC

Commendable
Dec 10, 2022
566
460
1,260
The branding is dumb period, but it's the route they decided to go (probably due to Apple) and they normalized it across all CPUs. I suppose it allows them to segment even more: Core Ultra, Core and Processor are all separate segments now. I do understand what you're saying, but the naming is quite frankly meaningless as it is just marketing nonsense.

Let's just all be happy that AMD kept desktop naming instead of going down the idiotic AI naming route that they did with laptop CPUs.
The AI stuff is to some extent even more stupid than ultra, derail a bit but somehow, especially given all the recent negative news one after another for Intel this ultra branding things goes to be more of a slap in the face than redefining the game.
 

TheHerald

Respectable
BANNED
Feb 15, 2024
1,633
501
2,060
The branding is dumb period, but it's the route they decided to go (probably due to Apple) and they normalized it across all CPUs. I suppose it allows them to segment even more: Core Ultra, Core and Processor are all separate segments now. I do understand what you're saying, but the naming is quite frankly meaningless as it is just marketing nonsense.

Let's just all be happy that AMD kept desktop naming instead of going down the idiotic AI naming route that they did with laptop CPUs.
Why do you feel the branding is stupid? I feel like it is as stupid as before, since the i5 i7 i9 moniker were practically useless, the tier of the cpu was already included in the name (900, 700,600 etc.).

Well i guess they added an ultra there now which I find funny, but supposedly - I kid you not - market researchers are claiming putting ultra on your product increases sales. I don't know, I don't make the rules.
 
I will. If you are not in any hurry to upgrade cause your PC is still holding up, you should absolutely without a shadow of a doubt wait for the 9950x 3d. Not only there is a big chance it will be as good as the 285k in non gaming workloads, it will almost certainly be better in games. And in the case for whatever reason it turns out to be a flop, youll still have the 285k and who knows, it might get some scheduler updates and perform good in games too.
Hah, I didn't see your reply. I actually agree with that high level assessment.

--

In another topic I saw briefly mentioned in a few posts: not taking the "gaming crown" for Intel is hurting them (EDIT: some said it's not relevant or less important). Keep in mind they segment their lineup so that "gamers" are forced to buy the i9 tier for "maxxxxxxximum gamerz powaa" and they're not even shy to put that in most of their marketing material sent to reviewers and presented in show floors, etc.

Another important point to mention there is the Zen5 bad reception was mainly due to their poor gaming uplift and not their application performance improvements (which are really good and everyone has acknowledged that). Arrow Lake is a hit or miss here, but at least they're more competitive against AMD now.

Back to the gaming argument: look at this:
View: https://youtu.be/sL5AdestfNY?t=109


That is the official review kit. Notice the "Made to Game" slogan? That is at the top. So, again, that is confirmation Intel now has a huge uphill battle with the new VCache'd siblings looming on the horizon. Also, important: I'm not making a value judgement, because that is almost always a case-by-case analysis (personal).

Regards.
 

YSCCC

Commendable
Dec 10, 2022
566
460
1,260
Hah, I didn't see your reply. I actually agree with that high level assessment.

--

In another topic I saw briefly mentioned in a few posts: not taking the "gaming crown" for Intel is hurting them (EDIT: some said it's not relevant or less important). Keep in mind they segment their lineup so that "gamers" are forced to buy the i9 tier for "maxxxxxxximum gamerz powaa" and they're not even shy to put that in most of their marketing material sent to reviewers and presented in show floors, etc.

Another important point to mention there is the Zen5 bad reception was mainly due to their poor gaming uplift and not their application performance improvements (which are really good and everyone has acknowledged that). Arrow Lake is a hit or miss here, but at least they're more competitive against AMD now.

Back to the gaming argument: look at this:
View: https://youtu.be/sL5AdestfNY?t=109


That is the official review kit. Notice the "Made to Game" slogan? That is at the top. So, again, that is confirmation Intel now has a huge uphill battle with the new VCache'd siblings looming on the horizon. Also, important: I'm not making a value judgement, because that is almost always a case-by-case analysis (personal).

Regards.
That is self induced embarrassment 🤦🏻‍♂️
 
Apr 11, 2024
8
10
15
AMD uses an active interposer and it sucks a lot of power at full load, but also at IDLE. Anandtech had the measurements for that in their old 3950X or 5950X reviews. Keep in mind the mesh they use has not changed since first introduced. Minor tweaks at best, but mainly the same. So, improving the overall IO and CPU dies, but still keeping the piggy package mesh.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1621...e-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested/8

And a very good read on it what AMD was thinking back then (I guess?): https://www.anandtech.com/show/16930/does-an-amd-chiplet-have-a-core-count-limit

The mesh power consumption was amplified a lot in EPYC packaging. I remember seeing measurements where it uses around 150W of the total power budget, which is a bit over half for some models?

All this to say that AMD is still willing to pay on the lower power side (innefficiency) and keep the balance of the cost-to-performance of the current packaging. Which, again, Intel is using a way more expensive solution which, all in all, makes it 20W more efficient on the best case scenario :D

Regards.

I know this is a really late reply, but AMD doesn't use an active interposer. They don't use an interposer at all on their CPUs.
 

TheHerald

Respectable
BANNED
Feb 15, 2024
1,633
501
2,060
Hah, I didn't see your reply. I actually agree with that high level assessment.

--

In another topic I saw briefly mentioned in a few posts: not taking the "gaming crown" for Intel is hurting them (EDIT: some said it's not relevant or less important). Keep in mind they segment their lineup so that "gamers" are forced to buy the i9 tier for "maxxxxxxximum gamerz powaa" and they're not even shy to put that in most of their marketing material sent to reviewers and presented in show floors, etc.

Another important point to mention there is the Zen5 bad reception was mainly due to their poor gaming uplift and not their application performance improvements (which are really good and everyone has acknowledged that). Arrow Lake is a hit or miss here, but at least they're more competitive against AMD now.

Back to the gaming argument: look at this:
View: https://youtu.be/sL5AdestfNY?t=109


That is the official review kit. Notice the "Made to Game" slogan? That is at the top. So, again, that is confirmation Intel now has a huge uphill battle with the new VCache'd siblings looming on the horizon. Also, important: I'm not making a value judgement, because that is almost always a case-by-case analysis (personal).

Regards.
A lot to unpack here.

Zen 5 was badly received because amd was tooting it would curbstomp the competion in gaming. It did no such thing. It was also showing the 9700x absolutely demolishing the 14700k in some MT workloads (kid you not) which, well, let's just say it did not. Although on that last part I assume they made an error on their graphs, I do not belive they were seriously trying to push that narrative.

Regarding intels marketing push, all of these boxes you are seeing are for the DIY market since the DIY is the only buyer that's ever going to see the box. So yeah, they need to push the gaming narrative cause DIY people watch too many YouTube gaming reviewrs at 720p with a 4090 not realizing that their 4060 and 4070 trying to game at 1440p will hit a brick wall at a framerate much lower than what any modern cpu can push. Then theyll need to start dropping settings to medium which lightens the load on the cpu as well allowing it to reach even higher framerates.

So dunno man, "gaming performance" is a scam. If you care THAT much about your cpus gaming performance you should be at minimum tuning your goddamn ram which is a much bigger bottleneck than your cpu is.

If people believe that the 245k is too slow to game on then they have a severe case of youtubeiosis. Too many 4090 videos. I mean the other day a guy was complaining that his 14600k was only hitting 400 fps on valorant in this very forum. Goddamn, must have been unplayable.
 
I know this is a really late reply, but AMD doesn't use an active interposer. They don't use an interposer at all on their CPUs.
I'll have to admit I am going by what I've been able to gather from reviews and other people "studying" the chiplets, like here:

https://www.techpowerup.com/245521/on-the-coming-chiplet-revolution-and-amds-mcm-promise

https://spectrum.ieee.org/amd-tackles-coming-chiplet-revolution-with-new-chip-network-scheme

I know they use active in EPYC, for sure, but you could be right for consumer and I'm trying to find more information on that front. It's just really hard to come by.

How are you certain they don't use active interposer in consumer packaging?

Regards.
 

SunMaster

Commendable
Apr 19, 2022
215
194
1,760
At least a step in the right direction.
Seems I remember AMD had a few short-cummings with their first chiplet based processor.
Or a windows core scheduling update may help.
History repeats itself.

History isn't repeating itself. Zen+ introduced chiplets. The many-cored Zen 2xxx series outperformed Intels offerings by far, and more or less was the beginning of the end of Intels HEDT-segment. The new Intel CPUs have no advantages I can see.
 
Why do you feel the branding is stupid? I feel like it is as stupid as before, since the i5 i7 i9 moniker were practically useless, the tier of the cpu was already included in the name (900, 700,600 etc.).

Well i guess they added an ultra there now which I find funny, but supposedly - I kid you not - market researchers are claiming putting ultra on your product increases sales. I don't know, I don't make the rules.
That's exactly why I find it stupid: they changed the naming but didn't really change anything. They replaced i with ultra and shaved a number off the name.
 

SunMaster

Commendable
Apr 19, 2022
215
194
1,760
In truth HT was really invented to help with Northwood's extremely long pipelines which could be expensive for a lot of small work items. HT gave Intel a way of combining that work in one cycle. It has stuck around because on the whole it wasn't a net negative and in some non-gaming MT workloads it had a fair uplift. Now with CPU attacks centered around shared resources within a CPU (required for HT/SMT to work) the question has become is it still not a net negative on the whole? I think it will take a couple of product cycles to find out the answer to that question.
Perhaps a better wording would be that Intel implemented, because Intel surely didn't invent it. The concept was originally patented by Sun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_multithreading is also an interesting read,
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JamesJones44
Apr 11, 2024
8
10
15
I'll have to admit I am going by what I've been able to gather from reviews and other people "studying" the chiplets, like here:

https://www.techpowerup.com/245521/on-the-coming-chiplet-revolution-and-amds-mcm-promise

https://spectrum.ieee.org/amd-tackles-coming-chiplet-revolution-with-new-chip-network-scheme

I know they use active in EPYC, for sure, but you could be right for consumer and I'm trying to find more information on that front. It's just really hard to come by.

How are you certain they don't use active interposer in consumer packaging?

Regards.

Epyc doesn't use an interposer either, only MI300. I am certain it doesn't for multiple reasons, but the easiest of which is that you'd be able to see it like you can on ARL (see picture below, the base tile is the interposer).

PDGYVSfLWNH1Cpdb.jpg
 
I have been using an Intel i7 14700K since January 2024, undervolted, all P Cores @ 5.5GHz, all E Cores at 4.3GHz with an air cooler. Just before typing this I again ran IntelBurnTest V2. CPU Package Power was 174.3 watts, which is fairly good for this CPU running @ 5.5GHz all P Cores & 4.3GHz all E Cores. I seem to be one of the fortunate people with a stable 14 series CPU, I'm not certain how much the under volt means for stability, I used it to keep the CPU temperature under control to allow me to use an air cooler. Also, when I bought this CPU I was unaware of the problems Intel was having with quality control. They may have solved the problems by the time my CPU was made.

It is obvious that currently AMD is hammering Intel's 15th gen - hard, especially in gaming. My 14700K does a good job in gaming at 4K and if my CPU continues to perform I will not be making another CPU, motherboard & RAM purchase any time soon (AMD next time unless Intel eventually makes a reliable CPU that will be faster than AMD in the next 5 years or so). Right now prices are too high for my budget for another upgrade.
 
Last edited:
Mar 10, 2020
414
376
5,070
Insane efficiency in MT tasks, but gaming is a big fat nothing burger / even worse than 14th gen. For non gaming workloads, both the i5 and the i9 look amazing, for gamers, dont bother.
If I may paraphrase your comments regarding Ryzen 9000, “2 years development for a performance regression on average”. Intel has a lot of work to do.

AMD zen 5% looks good in comparison.
 

TheHerald

Respectable
BANNED
Feb 15, 2024
1,633
501
2,060
If I may paraphrase your comments regarding Ryzen 9000, “2 years development for a performance regression on average”. Intel has a lot of work to do.

AMD zen 5% looks good in comparison.
What was my comment regarding the 9950x? I don't think I've said anything negative about it.

9950x was decent, 285k is a bit better.
 

TheHerald

Respectable
BANNED
Feb 15, 2024
1,633
501
2,060
Your own words….
Yes, and I acknowledged that the 285k is also a disappointment. That doesn't mean either is a bad cpu.

If you promise me 1m $ when I turn 18 and then you end up giving me only 500k I'll be disappointed, but I'm still richer than I was yesterday. Disappointment is based on expectations, not the actual worth of the product.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts