Tuesday, October 1st 2024
24-Core Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Falls Short of 8-Core Ryzen 7 9700X in Geekbench Leak
The leaks and rumors surrounding Intel's upcoming Arrow Lake desktop CPU line-up are starting to heat up, with recent rumors tipping the existence of the Core Ultra 9 285K as the top-end chip in the upcoming launch. A new set of Geekbench 6 scores spotted by BenchLeaks on X, however, suggests the Core Ultra 9 285 non-K variant of this CPU might lag its Ryzen 9 counterparts significantly.
The Geekbench 6 test results, which were apparently achieved on an ASUS Prime Z890-P motherboard, reveal performance that falls short of even the current-generation AMD Ryzen 7 9700X, never mind any of the Ryzen 9 variants. The Geekbench 6 multicore score came in at an unimpressive 14,150, while the single-core score was a mere 3,081, falling short of the likes of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X, which scored up to 19,381 and 3,624 in multi- and single-core tests, respectively. However, there appears to be more to this story—namely an odd test configuration that could heavily skew the test results, since the "stock" Intel Core Ultra 9 285K scores significantly higher in the Geekbench 6 charts than this particular 285 seems to.
Apparent engineering samples of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K that made it onto the Geekbench 6 charts have registered multicore scores as high as 21,447, which puts the K-SKU CPU with the same core layout and very similar clock speeds significantly ahead. Digging into the results a little, it appears that the ASUS test platform powering the Core Ultra 9 285 CPU only had 8 GB of DDR5 RAM running at 5586 MT/s, while Core Ultra 9 285K tests that scored much higher had up to 32 GB of DDR5 RAM running at up to 5598 MT/s.
That said, the listed base clock speeds of the Core Ultra 9 285's E-cores are also significantly lower than those of the top-scoring Core Ultra 9 285K, at just 2.5 GHz, compared to the 285K's 3.7 GHz base frequency. This could also explain some of the discrepancy.
Geekbench isn't known to be very RAM-dependent, with the benchmark's largest working set being on the order of 1.6 GB, so there may be some validity to this benchmark score, however it wouldn't be surprising to see the CPU perform significantly better in subsequent benchmarks. At the very least, this Geekbench score validates previous rumors about the expected hardware configuration of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and 285K CPUs:
Sources:
BenchLeaks, Geekbench browser, Geekbench 6 documentation (PDF)
The Geekbench 6 test results, which were apparently achieved on an ASUS Prime Z890-P motherboard, reveal performance that falls short of even the current-generation AMD Ryzen 7 9700X, never mind any of the Ryzen 9 variants. The Geekbench 6 multicore score came in at an unimpressive 14,150, while the single-core score was a mere 3,081, falling short of the likes of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X, which scored up to 19,381 and 3,624 in multi- and single-core tests, respectively. However, there appears to be more to this story—namely an odd test configuration that could heavily skew the test results, since the "stock" Intel Core Ultra 9 285K scores significantly higher in the Geekbench 6 charts than this particular 285 seems to.
That said, the listed base clock speeds of the Core Ultra 9 285's E-cores are also significantly lower than those of the top-scoring Core Ultra 9 285K, at just 2.5 GHz, compared to the 285K's 3.7 GHz base frequency. This could also explain some of the discrepancy.
Geekbench isn't known to be very RAM-dependent, with the benchmark's largest working set being on the order of 1.6 GB, so there may be some validity to this benchmark score, however it wouldn't be surprising to see the CPU perform significantly better in subsequent benchmarks. At the very least, this Geekbench score validates previous rumors about the expected hardware configuration of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and 285K CPUs:
- 8 P-cores
- 16 E-cores
- 24 threads
- Base clock: 2.5 GHz (P-core base clocks will likely be higher)
- Boost clock: 5.586 GHz (likely only for the P-cores)
32 Comments on 24-Core Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Falls Short of 8-Core Ryzen 7 9700X in Geekbench Leak
I do not believe there is any 4GB DIMM for ddr5.
Geekbench might have detected it wrongly though.
My operating systems can not handle different processor architectures. Mainly the scheduler of the operating system kernel. I also doubt my toolchain will handle easily without tweaking those different cores while compiling code. The main reason why I went with a 6 core with 6 fake cores all with the same architecture. I went also with a recent product as in my point of view older product hardly get's any security fixes or any optimizations at all or any mainboard updates.
Intel has never been energy efficient, look at mid-range and high end CPUs from Intel's 13 and 14 gen, their real TDP is 180W and 253W.
In gaming Ultra 9 285K will be best on the market. AMD can only compete with their 3DCache variants of their high end CPUs tier, but with their high core to core latency and invisible internal numa design (CCX), it's not really good for gaming.
It also falls short of the Geekbench leak from yesterday about the 265K. I wonder why that isn't that the title?
I wonder what the Geekbench leak from tomorrow will have as its title.
Why is this even posted, it's just misleading. GBench is a waste of time, where an 8 core can have a multithread score that's 80 % of a 16 core.
You do know that the 9700X runs with a slower clock speed, right?
It's useless.
Here's another example for those who are unfamiliar with this pos bench lol
Multicore, from here: browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks
Or my dreams.
According to this test, running GB in single channel mode is taking ~35% away.
techguided.com/single-channel-vs-dual-channel-vs-quad-channel/
(note that this was DDR4 on 12600k).
Even 280W TDP is still extreme, but of course, it's no longer 380W as with 14900K(S).In many non-gaming tasks Zen 4/5 cores prove to be better than Intel. Just have a look at Phoronix.
In gaming, Intel has few digit % to 10% performance uplift over Zen 4/5 but at what cost? 2-3 times more TDP, temps around 110°C and extreme voltages that cause degradation?
AMDs biggest problem is their shitty memory controller and aged chipset silicon.
Personally, I don't have any expectations towards Arrow Lake now. Look how Lunar Lake ended up.
The single CCX designs have been dominating the gaming charts, whilst using a fraction of the power. Have you not seen?
footsteps...door closing.
This is why im a fan of aplication benchmarks, synthetics are only good for single tasks that that dont change like calculating prime or pi.