Intel Core Ultra 9 285K “Arrow Lake” CPU Blazes Past Core i9-14900KS & Ryzen 9 9950X

[FoulOnWhite]

Interesting. Maybe this means Arrow Lake might be actually worthy. Not sure if the amount it "blazes" past is enough or not, but it certainly a start from a first look at possible performance. Might not be quite so good across the range though.

I decided to hang on to my 12700k to see what AM5 and Arrow Lake Turned out like, AM5 hasn't seemingly been a great launch unless X3D saves it (again(AM4)) still think I'll wait for proper reviews of Arrow Lake.


https://wccftech.com/intel-core-ult...-i9-14900ks-ryzen-9-9950x-benchmark-leak/amp/

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Interesting. Maybe this means Arrow Lake might be actually worthy. Not sure if the amount it "blazes" past is enough or not, but it certainly a start from a first look at possible performance. Might not be quite so good across the range though.

I decided to hang on to my 12700k to see what AM5 and Arrow Lake Turned out like, AM5 hasn't seemingly been a great launch unless X3D saves it (again(AM4)) still think I'll wait for proper reviews of Arrow Lake.


https://wccftech.com/intel-core-ult...-i9-14900ks-ryzen-9-9950x-benchmark-leak/amp/

It's geekbench so hard to say... seems like it'll probably be 10% ish faster than a stock 14900k depending on what Intel classifies as default in October.... On one hand that's pretty meh on the other hand the competition is also meh..... With X3D 9000 seemingly delayed intel has a window to shine let's see if amd has its scheduling and whatever windows bugs sorted by October I guess.

Not sure this architecture has ever been tested in gaming at this point so it's a big unknown my guess is it will look similar to how the 14900k does vs the 7950X depending on workload

It'll just be the 9950X vs 285k instead the big difference is the 285k might look much better out of the box. My guess is they will trade blows with the 285k slightly faster than the 7800X3D in games at more power... I guess only time will tell.

My hope is that it obliterates zen 5 and gives amd a wakeup call not to shovel a meh af generation to gamers but not holding my breath.

 

[Hyderz]

my guess is that amd 7800x3d will win in certain titles and intel will win certain ones...

 

[oxrufiioxo]

my guess is that amd 7800x3d will win in certain titles and intel will win certain ones...

The real key is how the ultra 5 compares to the 7800X3D it's likely to be priced similarly...

 

[Ruru]

I still think that the naming is stupid. Ultra should be the monicker for a high-end/enthusiast product like Nvidia used to name their flagships, not a whole lineup.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I still think that the naming is stupid. Ultra should be the monicker for a high-end/enthusiast product like Nvidia used to name their flagships, not a whole lineup.

Cpu naming has been ridiculous for a while and is only getting worse it's especially bad on laptop.

I'm ok with the ultra moniker as long as the 5/7/9 are easy to tell apart.

 

[A Computer Guy]

Cpu naming has been ridiculous for a while and is only getting worse it's especially bad on laptop.

I'm ok with the ultra moniker as long as the 5/7/9 are easy to tell apart.

I have a feeling eventually this will lead to Ultra 5 Extreme, Ultra 7 Extreme, and Ultra 9 Extreme editions.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I have a feeling eventually this will lead to Ultra 5 Extreme, Ultra 7 Extreme, and Ultra 9 Extreme editions.

Don't forget the AI destroyer of all things AMD edition at the end... Not that AMD is much better with the AI shenanigans on laptop.

 

[R0H1T]

They should just paste the core numbers at the end and be done with it

AMD zen 32x5 or 32x5c

If people can't be bothered to search for detailed specs it's on them! The issue with laptops is a bit different because the OEM's sell a lot of stuff by deliberate obfuscation as well.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

They should just paste the core numbers at the end and be done with it

AMD zen 32x5 or 32x5c

If people can't be bothered to search for detailed specs it's on them! The issue with laptops is a bit different because the OEM's sell a lot of stuff by deliberate obfuscation as well.

Yeah, it's annoying I'm like I gotta Google how bad this i5 or i7 is because they have similar naming for chips that perform drastically different. Seems AMD is starting that shite now as well.

Maybe add the year to it so Ryzen 9 16Z5 2024 vs Ryzen 9 16Z4 2022

I don't like the X because people will confuse that with it having more cores unless that's what you meant lol.

 

[Ruru]

Cpu naming has been ridiculous for a while and is only getting worse it's especially bad on laptop.

I'm ok with the ultra moniker as long as the 5/7/9 are easy to tell apart.

To be honest, I've been totally confused about laptop CPUs for years. If I wouldn't have any sources to check what a specific CPU is (from either AMD or Intel), I wouldn't have a slightest idea about what I would get.

 

[R0H1T]

I don't like the X because people will confuse that with it having more cores unless that's what you meant lol.

The x was number of cores & 5 is major uarch version, 5c would be minor revision with c(loud?) cores. Like 5900xt is 5950x & pretty useless relaunch, also why is it not 12 cores like 5900x or 3900xt

 

[Shakallia]

Geekbench meh... I'll wait for gaming and productivity benches.

 

[N/A]

the low power island being 8mm², 8+32 next time around and then it's game over.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

Well i have £900 stashed for either AM5 or skt1851, just waiting now for AL to release and proper reviews. Might be edging towards AL though.

 

[Melvis]

Its "ok" kinda meh when a 20core only just beats a gimped 16core.....

 

[Assimilator]

Garbagebench + wccftech is not a reliable source for anything, especially with this clickbait title; ~10% improvement is not "blazing" in any way shape or form.

 

[SL2]

What's next, P*ssmark?

I have no doubt Arrow might be the fastest, just post something useful or don't post anyhing at all

 

[darkangel0504]

Its "ok" kinda meh when a 20core only just beats a gimped 16core.....

it's 24 core

 

[Vayra86]

Blazing fast in geekbench. The end

 

[Vya Domus]

It's not blazing past anything if it needs 50% more cores to get a 14% win and you can find scores with pretty much the same ST performance for the 9950X, so virtually nothing relevant there.

 

[A Computer Guy]

The x was number of cores & 5 is major uarch version, 5c would be minor revision with c(loud?) cores. Like 5900xt is 5950x & pretty useless relaunch, also why is it not 12 cores like 5900x or 3900xt

Whatever sales person came up with 5900xt was smoking a little too much of something. All they had to do was drop the x and it would have simply been 5950 and everything would have been right in the world. I suspect it was a transfer from someone in the laptop division responsible for that CPU naming mess over there.

 

[Crazybc]

I will reserve judgement till Techpowerup and a few other major trusted websites have reviewed and tested it. Then I will believe the posted numbers. Until then I'm in the wait and see category rather then guessing or jumping to conclusions because of leaks.

 

[AnotherReader]

Interesting. Maybe this means Arrow Lake might be actually worthy. Not sure if the amount it "blazes" past is enough or not, but it certainly a start from a first look at possible performance. Might not be quite so good across the range though.

I decided to hang on to my 12700k to see what AM5 and Arrow Lake Turned out like, AM5 hasn't seemingly been a great launch unless X3D saves it (again(AM4)) still think I'll wait for proper reviews of Arrow Lake.


https://wccftech.com/intel-core-ult...-i9-14900ks-ryzen-9-9950x-benchmark-leak/amp/

If true, that result is very underwhelming considering that the Skymont cores were expected to be far superior to Gracemont. In any case, let's wait for reviews by reputable reviewers before condemning Arrow Lake.

 

[Kodehawa]

Since geekbench is stupid and puts waayy too much AI stuff into its score weighting, lets show it broken down:

There doesn't really seem to be all that much difference in most benches:

Though it depends on where you look, I've seen some with worse performing 14900KS.

Broken down multi-core (reminder: ASUS one is 285K):

There's definitely been an improvement in some areas, but there seems to be some regressions. Background Blur is one example where the 14900KS seems to be a *lot* better at?
Clang is probably the best representation of synthetic performance, and that seems to be ~15% better.

Most improvements seem to be all on the E-Core front, as single-core is almost identical, though Clang on single-core is also a fair bit better.

Honestly I'd rather wait for Cinebench scores to make a conclusion, because if we take the scores at face value the overall improvement in Geekbench could skew towards zero.