Tuesday, October 8th 2024

Intel's Core Ultra 9 285K Performance Claims Leaked, Doesn't Beat i9-14900K at Gaming

The Chinese tech press is abuzz with slides allegedly from Intel's pre-launch press-deck for the Core Ultra 2-series "Arrow Lake-S." The most sensational of these are Intel's first-party performance claims for the top Core Ultra 9 285K model. There's good news and bad news. Good news first—Intel claims to have made a big leap in energy efficiency with "Arrow Lake," and the 285K should offer gaming performance comparable to the current Core i9-14900K at around 80 W lower power draw for the processor. But then there in lies the bad news—despite claimed IPC gains for the "Lion Cove" P-core, and rumored clock speeds being on par with the "Raptor Cove" P-cores on the i9-14900K, the 285K is barely any faster than its predecessor in absolute terms.

In its first party testing, when averaged across 12 game tests, which we used Google optical translation to make out the titles of, Intel used performance numbers of the i9-14900K as the mean. The 285K beats the i9-14900K in only four games—Warhammer 40K: Space Marine 2, Age of Mythology Retold, Civilization VI: Gathering Storm, and F1 23. It's on-par with the i9-14900K in Red Dead Redemption 2, Total War: Pharaoh, Metro Exodus, Cyberpunk 2077, Black Myth: Wukong, Rainbow Six Siege. It's slower than the i9-14900K in Far Cry 6, FF XIV, F1 24, Red Dead Redemption 2. Averaged across this bench, the Core Ultra 9 285K ends up roughly on par with the Core i9-14900K in gaming. Intel also compared the 285K to AMD's Ryzen 9 9950X, and interestingly, even the Ryzen 9 7950X3D.
The Ryzen 9 7950X3D isn't AMD's fastest gaming processor (which is the 7800X3D), but Intel chose this so it could compare the 285K across both gaming and productivity workloads. The 285K is shown being significantly slower than the 7950X3D in Far Cry 6 and Cyberpunk 2077. It's on par in Assassin's Creed Shadows and CIV 6 Gathering Storm. It only gets ahead in Rainbow Six Siege. Then there's the all important comparison with the current AMD flagship, the Ryzen 9 9950X "Zen 5." The 9950X is shown being on-par or beating the 285K in 8 out of 12 game tests. And the 9950X is the regular version of "Zen 5," without the 3D V-cache.

All is not doom and gloom for the Core Ultra 9 285K, the significant IPC gains Intel made for the "Skymont" E-cores means that the 285K gets significantly ahead of the 7950X3D in multithreaded productivity workloads, as shown with Geekbench 4.3, Cinebench 2024, and POV-Ray.
Sources: VideoCardz, Wxnod (Twitter)
Add your own comment

109 Comments on Intel's Core Ultra 9 285K Performance Claims Leaked, Doesn't Beat i9-14900K at Gaming

#101
tfp
persondbThey claimed a total system power of 527W for the 14900K. The ~400 was supposedly for the 285K.

It will also vary obviously a lot depending in the testing setup and what was tested so it's roughly consistent with Techspot stuff. They might have manipulated the game list somewhat so that the 14900K looks less the power consumption monster it is.

We will know for certain when reviewers actually test this claim.

But if it's consistent with Techspot test then it would be 7800X3D at 477W vs 285K at ~529W.
Or maybe they have the Bios patches applied which lowered power consumption for 14900k
Posted on Reply
#102
mkppo
Meh, it seems Ian and George were right in their podcast even though I disagreed with their views where they said that ARL will be a sidegrade in gaming performance compared to RPL. Seems like Intel's own slides show it's slower than the 7950X3D. I guess that massive L2 only helped mask the increased latencies but the end result is a lower power and similarly performing chip in gaming.

Let's wait for the reviews, I guess it's in two weeks with a preview today.
Posted on Reply
#103
persondb
tfpOr maybe they have the Bios patches applied which lowered power consumption for 14900k
From their disclaimer, it seems to be BIOS 2503, IDK if that is the one which lowers power consumption for 14900K or not.
It probably includes some of the fixes for the crashing issues but idk which ones.
Posted on Reply
#104
SL2
persondbBut if it's consistent with Techspot test then it would be 7800X3D at 477W vs 285K at ~529W.
Oh no no no.

Where did you get 529 W from?



The numbers in OP are AVERAGE from multiple games, I translated the three characters before "FPS". Possibly all 14 games but who knows..

7800X3D at 477 W is for Starfield only, while the lowest in that review is 358 W.



The 14900K system draws 527 - 447 = 80 W more than a 285K system in games according to Intel.

The 14900K CPU draws 144 W in games (TPU).

My guess is that the 285K draws 144 - 80 = 64 W in games. Yup, full of flaws! :roll:
Posted on Reply
#105
sLowEnd
Beginner Macro DeviceUnpopular opinion: the most horrible thing about this new Core Ultra 9 285K is its name.
You can still easily tell the generation (first digit) and tier within generation (2nd digit) at a glance and changing "i" to "Ultra" doesn't really do anything since the i/Ultra don't mean anything anyway. Dropping the worthless 0 at the end of the previous naming scheme doesn't change anything either. That 0 didn't signify anything. The only reason for its existence goes all the way back to Nehalem, which wasn't named the i#-100 series. The issue was avoided with Meteor Lake being the 100 series for the Ultra lineup.

Sandy Bridge could have easily been i7-260K, i5-250K, i3-210 ...etc. were it not for Nehalem's precedent.

Core i9 2850K OK

Core i Ultra 9 2850K Oh no the change of an arbitrary marketing letter to an arbitrary marketing word and the loss of a useless zero has destroyed legibility for me

Please.
Posted on Reply
#106
tfp
sLowEndCore i9 2850K OK

Core i Ultra 9 2850K Oh no the change of an arbitrary marketing letter to an arbitrary marketing word and the loss of a useless zero has destroyed legibility for me

Please.
2850K already looks like 285 OK so that's why it's ok.

Also they didn't include a 290OK so obviously this isn't as high end as the 1490OK
Posted on Reply
#107
Beginner Macro Device
sLowEndCore i Ultra 9 2850K Oh no the change of an arbitrary marketing letter to an arbitrary marketing word and the loss of a useless zero has destroyed legibility for me
If you actually cared to read my further posts you'd realise you're arguing with the point that never existed.

I give no rat's patoot about the number. 285K and 15900K are both equally legit for me, albeit the latter is much less confusing for average Joes.
I give no rat's patoot about the legibility. If an X dollar SKU provides much more value than an X dollar SKU from the previous gen then I'm fine with that. No matter the name.

It's just renaming from short and sound "i" to a longer and ridiculed "Ultra" shares the same vibes with using trollfaces and nyan cats in ads of 2024. The age of this word ended very long ago.
Posted on Reply
#108
SL2
sLowEndThe only reason for its existence goes all the way back to Nehalem, which wasn't named the i#-100 series. The issue was avoided with Meteor Lake being the 100 series for the Ultra lineup.

Sandy Bridge could have easily been i7-260K, i5-250K, i3-210 ...etc. were it not for Nehalem's precedent.
Three generations from now they will be within reach of reusing Clarkdale names, like Core i3 530, 540, 550, 560. At least one reason to drop the "i", even if I don't believe it myself.
sLowEndCore i9 2850K OK
Yeah no, that's a future 6 core Sandy bridge if you're asking me!
Posted on Reply
#109
Papusan
AusWolfHang on... What's that 447 W over there? Are they trying to tell me that this thing compares well to the 7950X3D while eating half a kilowatt? :wtf:

They must be out of their minds to think that this is acceptable on any level.
RTX 4090 can eat half a kilowatt alone :D Half a kilowatt for the whole system sounds good for me:toast:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Oct 11th, 2024 07:12 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts