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

24-Core Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Falls Short of 8-Core Ryzen 7 9700X in Geekbench Leak

Cpt.Jank

Staff
Staff member
Joined
Aug 30, 2024
Messages
56 (0.71/day)
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:

  • 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)

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source
 

Space Lynx

Astronaut
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
17,148 (4.65/day)
Location
Kepler-186f
I know it's not the best bench, but I was not expecting that regardless. Hmm. I was expecting top of the line Arrow Lake to really dominate the benches across the board, best to wait for official benches I suppose.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2021
Messages
306 (0.24/day)
If it's really running 8GB of DDR5 then it's almost certainly running it in a single channel configuration. This will likely affect the multicore score as several of individual tests depend a lot in memory bandwidth.

I do not believe there is any 4GB DIMM for ddr5.

Geekbench might have detected it wrongly though.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2024
Messages
312 (2.86/day)
Let's see official reviews.

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.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2023
Messages
43 (0.07/day)
It's misleading news header. It should be clearly stated that it's for 65W rated CPU.

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.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
202 (0.14/day)
What has hardware news reporting become? Smh.

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.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Messages
2,168 (1.13/day)
Location
LV-426
System Name Custom
Processor i9 9900k
Motherboard Gigabyte Z390 arous master
Cooling corsair h150i
Memory 4x8 3200mhz corsair
Video Card(s) Galax RTX 3090 EX Gamer White OC
Storage 500gb Samsung 970 Evo PLus
Display(s) MSi MAG341CQ
Case Lian Li Pc-011 Dynamic
Audio Device(s) Arctis Pro Wireless
Power Supply 850w Seasonic Focus Platinum
Mouse Logitech G403
Keyboard Logitech G110
Speculations speculations, the reviews is in 10 days?
 
Joined
Sep 14, 2020
Messages
567 (0.37/day)
Location
Greece
System Name Office / HP Prodesk 490 G3 MT (ex-office)
Processor Intel 13700 (90° limit) / Intel i7-6700
Motherboard Asus TUF Gaming H770 Pro / HP 805F H170
Cooling Noctua NH-U14S / Stock
Memory G. Skill Trident XMP 2x16gb DDR5 6400MHz cl32 / Samsung 2x8gb 2133MHz DDR4
Video Card(s) Asus RTX 3060 Ti Dual OC GDDR6X / Zotac GTX 1650 GDDR6 OC
Storage Samsung 2tb 980 PRO MZ / Samsung SSD 1TB 860 EVO + WD blue HDD 1TB (WD10EZEX)
Display(s) Eizo FlexScan EV2455 - 1920x1200 / Panasonic TX-32LS490E 32'' LED 1920x1080
Case Nanoxia Deep Silence 8 Pro / HP microtower
Audio Device(s) On board
Power Supply Seasonic Prime PX750 / OEM 300W bronze
Mouse MS cheap wired / Logitech cheap wired m90
Keyboard MS cheap wired / HP cheap wired
Software W11 / W7 Pro ->10 Pro
As already mentioned it's the 285 non-K version and for some reason underperforming.. Even at strictly 65w, single core should be close to 285K levels, at least >3300.
 

SL2

Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
2,432 (0.35/day)
Who cares.

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.
1727775971508.png
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
301 (0.07/day)
Processor Intel i7-12700K
Motherboard MSI PRO Z690-A WIFI
Cooling Noctua NH-D15S
Memory Corsair Vengeance 4x16 GB (64GB) DDR4-3600 C18
Video Card(s) MSI GeForce RTX 3090 GAMING X TRIO 24G
Storage Samsung 980 Pro 1TB, SK hynix Platinum P41 2TB
Case Fractal Define C
Power Supply Corsair RM850x
Mouse Logitech G203
Software openSUSE Tumbleweed
At what wattage though?

Even if it was 65W, performance scaling with power is not linear. All CPUs operate much more efficiently when frequencies/voltages (which power limits affect) are kept low.

1727777826986.png
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
14,075 (3.82/day)
Location
Sunshine Coast
System Name H7 Flow 2024
Processor AMD 5800X3D
Motherboard Asus X570 Tough Gaming
Cooling Custom liquid
Memory 32 GB DDR4
Video Card(s) Intel ARC A750
Storage Crucial P5 Plus 2TB.
Display(s) AOC 24" Freesync 1m.s. 75Hz
Mouse Lenovo
Keyboard Eweadn Mechanical
Software W11 Pro 64 bit
Who cares.

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.
View attachment 365563
Did you forget clock speeds that are taken into account in GB.
 

SL2

Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
2,432 (0.35/day)
Did you forget clock speeds that are taken into account in GB.
Well that's part of the problem, isn't it?

You do know that the 9700X runs with a slower clock speed, right?
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
14,075 (3.82/day)
Location
Sunshine Coast
System Name H7 Flow 2024
Processor AMD 5800X3D
Motherboard Asus X570 Tough Gaming
Cooling Custom liquid
Memory 32 GB DDR4
Video Card(s) Intel ARC A750
Storage Crucial P5 Plus 2TB.
Display(s) AOC 24" Freesync 1m.s. 75Hz
Mouse Lenovo
Keyboard Eweadn Mechanical
Software W11 Pro 64 bit
There's obviously some other factor in their testing to make them run that close when the 9950X should be at least double the score
 

SL2

Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
2,432 (0.35/day)
There's obviously some other factor in their testing to make them run that close when the 9950X should be at least double the score
Hence why it shouldn't be posted at all, which was my point from the beginning.

It's useless.

Here's another example for those who are unfamiliar with this pos bench lol

Multicore, from here: https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks

1727782048980.png
 
Joined
Feb 14, 2020
Messages
139 (0.08/day)
If it's really running 8GB of DDR5 then it's almost certainly running it in a single channel configuration. This will likely affect the multicore score as several of individual tests depend a lot in memory bandwidth.

I do not believe there is any 4GB DIMM for ddr5.

Geekbench might have detected it wrongly though.
I can confirm that GB6 is reading a single DDR5 module as dual channel due to the dual subchannel configuration. The benchmark was actually performed with a single 8GB DDR5-5600MT/s module.
According to this test, running GB in single channel mode is taking ~35% away.




(note that this was DDR4 on 12600k).
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2024
Messages
213 (1.82/day)
System Name AM4_TimeKiller
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 5600X @ all-core 4.7 GHz
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B550-E Gaming
Cooling Arctic Freezer II 420 rev.7 (push-pull)
Memory G.Skill TridentZ RGB, 2x16 GB DDR4, B-Die, 3800 MHz @ CL14-15-14-29-43 1T, 53.2 ns
Video Card(s) ASRock Radeon RX 7800 XT Phantom Gaming
Storage Samsung 990 PRO 1 TB, Kingston KC3000 1 TB, Kingston KC3000 2 TB
Case Corsair 7000D Airflow
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium
Power Supply Seasonic Prime TX-850
Mouse Logitech wireless mouse
Keyboard Logitech wireless keyboard
It's misleading news header. It should be clearly stated that it's for 65W rated CPU.
9700X, too, is a 65W TDP CPU.

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.
Arrow Lake was said to lower TDP and increase performance. Intel stated, that Arrow Lake's highend will consume 100W less than Meteor Lake's highend while retaining clocks and performance.
Even 280W TDP is still extreme, but of course, it's no longer 380W as with 14900K(S).

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.
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.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
4,574 (0.93/day)
Location
in a van down by the river
Processor faster at instructions than yours
Motherboard more nurturing than yours
Cooling frostier than yours
Memory superior scheduling & haphazardly entry than yours
Video Card(s) better rasterization than yours
Storage more ample than yours
Display(s) increased pixels than yours
Case fancier than yours
Audio Device(s) further audible than yours
Power Supply additional amps x volts than yours
Mouse without as much gnawing as yours
Keyboard less clicky than yours
VR HMD not as odd looking as yours
Software extra mushier than yours
Benchmark Scores up yours
With these results it's not hyperbole when I say "THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING"/s
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
126 (0.02/day)
Location
Brazil
Processor Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard ASRock B650M PG Riptide
Cooling Wraith Max + 2x Noctua Redux NF-P12
Memory 2x16GB ADATA XPG Lancer Blade DDR5-6000 CL30
Video Card(s) Powercolor RX 7800 XT Fighter OC
Storage ADATA Legend 970 2TB PCIe 5.0
Display(s) Dell 32" S3222DGM - 1440P 165Hz + P2422H
Case HYTE Y40
Audio Device(s) Microsoft Xbox TLL-00008
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE 750 V2
Mouse Alienware AW320M
Keyboard Alienware AW510K
Software Windows 11 Pro
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.
Where are the real world tests to back up your claim? Or are you using your crystal ball?

The single CCX designs have been dominating the gaming charts, whilst using a fraction of the power. Have you not seen?
 
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
2,203 (1.25/day)
System Name DadsBadAss
Processor I7 13700k w/ HEATKILLER IV PRO Copper Nickel
Motherboard MSI Z790 Tomahawk Wifi DDR4
Cooling BarrowCH Boxfish 200mm-HWLabs SR2 420/GTX&GTS 360-BP Dual D5 MOD TOP- 2x Koolance PMP 450S
Memory 4x8gb HyperX Predator RGB DDR4 4000
Video Card(s) Asrock 6800xt PG D w/ Byski A-AR6900XT-X
Storage WD SN850x 1TB NVME M.2/Adata XPG SX8200 PRO 1TB NVMe M.2
Display(s) Acer XG270HU
Case ThermalTake X71 w/5 Noctua NF-A14 2000 IP67 PWM/3 Noctua NF-F12 2000 IP67 PWM/3 CorsairML120 Pro RGB
Audio Device(s) Klipsch Promedia 2.1
Power Supply Seasonic Focus PX-850 w/CableMod PRO ModMesh RT-Series Black/Blue
Mouse Logitech G502
Keyboard Black Aluminun Mechanical Clicky Thing With Blue LEDs, hows that for a name?!
Software Win11pro
garbagebench

footsteps...door closing.
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
1,140 (0.20/day)
Location
SCOTLAND!
System Name Machine XX
Processor Ryzen 7600
Motherboard MSI X670E GAMING PLUS
Cooling 120mm heatsink
Memory 32GB DDR5 6000 CL30
Video Card(s) RX5700XT 8Gb
Storage 280GB Optane 900p
Display(s) 19" + 23" + 17"
Case ATX
Audio Device(s) Soundblaster Z
Power Supply 800W
Software Windows 11
benchmarks like geekbench are a joke, you can can make any CPU win just by changing the number of times it runs each test. Intel used to pay companies to do this back in the day when AMD started winning benchmarks they would just find the tasks that intel could do better and repeat them to change the score. so all you got was the total score so all you seen was intel winning. bapco was one, there was a few others too.

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.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2021
Messages
1,641 (1.51/day)
Location
Mississauga, Canada
Processor Ryzen 7 5700X
Motherboard ASUS TUF Gaming X570-PRO (WiFi 6)
Cooling Noctua NH-C14S (two fans)
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3200
Video Card(s) Reference Vega 64
Storage Intel 665p 1TB, WD Black SN850X 2TB, Crucial MX300 1TB SATA, Samsung 830 256 GB SATA
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG27, and Samsung S23A700
Case Fractal Design R5
Power Supply Seasonic PRIME TITANIUM 850W
Mouse Logitech
VR HMD Oculus Rift
Software Windows 11 Pro, and Ubuntu 20.04
Top