Intel Core Ultra 5 245K

[GoldenX]

If you sell a product on a desktop socket, for desktop workloads, price it accordingly for a desktop consumer. This is the same sin Zen5 committed, now with even worse performance.
And that's not even counting the plethora of motherboard and BIOS issues this launch has.

To add insult to injury, it seems like either the OS or the UEFI is not aware of the P core count, threads are being randomly assigned to any core.
This stuff got 3 months rushed to fit in a Q3 release timeframe.
A disaster.

 

[lexluthermiester]

So reading this, i'm sticking to the ole 5800X3D lol.

And if gaming is most important to you, that's a good idea.

 

[Macro Device]

Then you're likely only gaming. Intel new arch is geared for more that just raw gaming performance.

$310 buys you a 13700, maybe even K, like, no question asked, especially 2nd hand. It has enough performance to make 245K look silly.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Clearly this architecture is aimed at servers, work stations

It's aimed at being well-balanced and well performing for ALL types of work loads.

(and several reviewers have)

That doesn't make them right, it makes them either clueless or sell-outs. They're either not seeing the big picture or are deliberately sidestepping it in favor of being dramatic for clicks & views. Either way, those review become worthless.

The that leaves the real disaster for the at home DIY builders & at home desktop community who mostly use their PCs for gaming, web browsing, MS office.

Please explain your logic. Are these new CPU somehow bad at any one task? Even if we only look at gaming, they are still competitive. This 245K is at the bottom of the list and is STILL kicking the crap out of recent top tier CPU's, so seriously?

Intel Core Ultra 5 245K Review

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K is the company's most affordable Arrow Lake release today. While its 6+8 core config without Hyper-Threading might make it appear weak at first, it actually punches well above its weight, especially in applications. Unfortunately gaming isn't working so well.

www.techpowerup.com

This CPU bottom tier 245K beats out the 7700X, not a bottom tier CPU in some of the bench's, comes close in others and beat out top tier CPU model in other games.
The performance of this CPU is all over the place but at minimum is on par with it's contemporaries.
Anything not game related? Forget about it, this CPU kicks ass as does it's upper class models.

That leaves the consumer as the loser.

That's not true. It's just a failure to understand.


WTH are people thinking? Are they blind or is reading comprehension failing them somehow?

 

[dirtyferret]

The performance of this CPU is all over the place

That's what I'm saying. If it's all over the place how can it be a good all around CPU, it is very task specific compared to other CPUs on the market.

It's aimed at being well-balanced and well performing for ALL types of work loads.

in the TPU review;
MS Office - falls behind the 12600k in 3 of the 4 tests. Fall behind the 13600k in the fourth
Antivirus - matches the 12600k
gaming - it falls behind the 13600k

but as you dig into the app performance tests it's very much feast or famine with this CPU.
AI - excellent
Rendering - good to excellent
Web browsing - below the 13400 in one test, the 12700k in another
Emulation - Very good with PlayStation, not so good with Switch
Media Encoding - very good in AV1 but giving you 13600/14600k in the others or worse.

I can go on and on. With the 12600k I know it will give me performance between the 11600k and 13600k in virtually every tests. With the Ryzen 3600, I know it will give me performance between the 2600 and 5600. These Ultra CPUs in my opinion are inconsistent. It's not that they can't do it or are bad at it but it really depends on the exact app you are running. I respect your opinion but I disagree with these CPUs performing well in all work loads compared to AMD's offering and the CPUs they replaced in the Intel line up.

They're either not seeing the big picture or are deliberately sidestepping it in favor of being dramatic for clicks & views.

Maybe and like I said before, stock holders could care less about reviews as they care about the order placed by DELL, HP, etc., and even Steve from Techspot stated he had to updated mobo BIOS multiple times to get them working. The launch really does look rushed.

Even if we only look at gaming, they are still competitive.

yes but over priced for that competitive performance and in the eyes of many gamers they are disappointed by the results

That's not true. It's just a failure to understand.

anytime you don't have competitive performance in the marketplace from various sellers/brands the consumer always loses out. I've stated prior for certain things at which these Ultra excel at, they make sense. For your typical at home desktop user - gaming, MS office, AV, web browsing - yes it's more than capable but a current steep price for that level of capability.

 

[lexluthermiester]

and in the eyes of many gamers they are disappointed by the results

That's their own problem. Calling something complete crap because it doesn't do what you want it to do as well as they'd like is narrow, ignorant and disingenuous.

 

[dirtyferret]

Calling something complete crap

I've never called it crap (I know you are not saying me) , only that I'm disappointed in it's current price performance.

 

[narutoramox]

ULTRA 3?? WHATS IS THIS? REBRAND INTEL?

 

[Inferos]

ULTRA 3?? WHATS IS THIS? REBRAND INTEL?

Probably an AIDA issue. It should be updated soon to fix the recognition failure.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I've never called it crap (I know you are not saying me) , only that I'm disappointed in it's current price performance.

That's a fair statement. But if you think about it, the price isn't that bad. It just doesn't buy what all the gamers were hoping for.

 

[kapone32]

That's a fair statement. But if you think about it, the price isn't that bad. It just doesn't buy what all the gamers were hoping for.

That is the narrative. When AM4 launched Gaming became the priority. On the CPU front AMd have been good at understanding the narrative. MSI Gaming did not even use X3D in their live tests of the Intel 285K. This chip is not as fast as that. It is cheaper but so is the 5700X3D if cost is the mitigating factor.

 

[THU31]

View attachment 368916



ULTRA 3?? WHATS IS THIS? REBRAND INTEL?

83 ns?

I had 50 ns on Coffee Lake, and 65 ns on Raptor Lake with the same DDR4 kit.

L1 and L3 seem much faster, though.

 

[TristanX]

Page 32 with comparisons ARL to other CPU, there are wrong results. Comparing to 14600K, these bars shows that ARL is 23% faster to 14600K in Cinebench MT, which is untrue, bacause both have very similar performance. The same with MySQL where ARL is teh same level as 14600K, while page on 16, 14600K have 20% advantage. Please re-check and correct these comparisons, looks like overly optimistic to 245K

 

[W1zzard]

Page 32 with comparisons ARL to other CPU, there are wrong results. Comparing to 14600K, these bars shows that ARL is 23% faster to 14600K in Cinebench MT, which is untrue, bacause both have very similar performance. The same with MySQL where ARL is teh same level as 14600K, while page on 16, 14600K have 20% advantage. Please re-check and correct these comparisons, looks like overly optimistic to 245K

You are right, something went wrong while generating the chart, this is fixed now

 

[8tyone]

Is this Intel's Bulldozer? Or some fix is coming? Very inconsistent performance!

 

[Dave65]

My god. Reading about this disaster is even worse than watching videos of it.. The book is always better! Good review!

 

[TristanX]

You are right, something went wrong while generating the chart, this is fixed now

Comparisons with Ryzens also must be corrected

 

[wheresmycar]

Is this Intel's Bulldozer? Or some fix is coming? Very inconsistent performance!

Looks like a multi-faceted fix is required which doesn't look too promising for a quick-FIX. We just have to accept Intels cocked it up and it doesn't help with existing challenges with OS/software/games getting on board with the big.LITTLE shift.

 

[_roman_]

They are not to compare. In many workloads 245K is closer 9700X.

Only when your software is also executable on the E-Cores.

I would compare it with the cheapest of those three options Ryzen 7500F / 7600 / 7600X.

 

[Rabit]

Slightly faster than My Ryzen 5 7600 that I bought a year ago for 167 € for 2x+ Price increase I see regression