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

[persondb]

Unfortunately for the 14900k, system load isn't 400 W. It can be as high as 609 W even after enforcing a 125 W power limit. At default settings, Techspot measured another 100 W over that for over 700 W system power draw.



View attachment 366976

They 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.

 

[tfp]

They 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

 

[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.

 

[persondb]

Or 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.

 

[SL2]

But 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!

 

[sLowEnd]

Unpopular 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.

 

[tfp]

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.

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

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

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

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.

 

[SL2]

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.

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.

Core i9 2850K OK

Yeah no, that's a future 6 core Sandy bridge if you're asking me!

 

[Papusan]

Hang 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?

They must be out of their minds to think that this is acceptable on any level.

RTX 4090 can eat half a kilowatt alone Half a kilowatt for the whole system sounds good for me

 

[529th]

So what CPU are you going with for gaming this time around? With these preliminary results coming in I'm leaning towards AMD right now, 9K X3D chip but we'll see!