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

[docnorth]

I think you're right. In my own, way-off the mark thread here, this is what we generally thought:
View attachment 366585

The scary part is: Intel's "First-Party Benchmarks" are usually fantastically optimistic.... and a large chunk of people did think that there would be SOME improvement. So IMO this looks like it's going to generally miss expectations in the broader market.

I legitimately thought the APO team, faster ram etc. etc. would net some gains in games (since tuning ram and turning of HT on a 14900K can get you +10% over stock, reduce power draw, without any IPC increase or other improvements).

Yeah I voted 10-15%, still high, based on IPC and cache...
At least no itch for an upgrade (yet)...

 

[zorandesign]

May I ask - which 14900K is it 'roughly equal to' : the one before the latest microcode update or the one after it? I am asking for a friend.

 

[Konceptz]

It's Over. AMD win....

"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."

Missed that part huh? Oh that's right, gaming is the only metric that matters in a CPU's performance.

 

[Darkholm]

"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."

Missed that part huh? Oh that's right, gaming is the only metric that matters in a CPU's performance.

Looks like it. Zen 5 is also a "failure" due to the same thing.

 

[SL2]

"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."

How the fuck is Ge3kbench a productivity workload? It's a benchmark, and not really a reliable one either.

Missed that part huh? Oh that's right, gaming is the only metric that matters in a CPU's performance.

Missed that title, huh?

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

No wonder people focus on games.

It's a win for AMD, for him. Maybe not for you. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[phanbuey]

Looks like it. Zen 5 is also a "failure" due to the same thing.

Tons of gamers, not many "power users".

 

[rv8000]

No official benchmarks yet, but pretty much where I expected it to be a few months ago. It was either lower power at the same performance or more performance at the same power. Efficiency doesn’t even seem that much better though.

 

[Konceptz]

Looks like it. Zen 5 is also a "failure" due to the same thing.

Agreed, this is Intel's 5% moment. Increased energy efficiency appears to be the primary goal here.

 

[thepath]

This is disappointing if this is true

Basically 285K is 14900K with lower power consumption.

 

[Hardware1906]

i guess the trend this year is "same perf but less power" huh?
i wont be surprised if nvidia follows this trend too :skull:

 

[Konceptz]

How the fuck is Ge3kbench a productivity workload? It's a benchmark, and not really a reliable one either.


Missed that title, huh?

No wonder people focus on games.

It's a win for AMD, for him. Maybe not for you. Nothing wrong with that.

Geekbench matters when AMD is topping the charts somehow.... Carry on fanboy.

 

[SL2]

Geekbench matters when AMD is topping the charts somehow.... Carry on fanboy.

Oh, spicy!

GBench never matters. If you think it does, and also expect forum members to agree on everything.. well, welcome to the internet. No need for name calling.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

Unpopular opinion: the most horrible thing about this new Core Ultra 9 285K is its name.

 

[SL2]

Unpopular opinion: the most horrible thing about this new Core Ultra 9 285K is its name.

I dunno, I'm glad they're back to hundreds. The ultra part is not needed, but it's better than AI I guess lol

Imagine Core Ai7 15700K, people would lose their shit, me included.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

The ultra part is

It's like those "cool" magazines from forever ago targeting young audience. Then, it was kinda okay due to it being a bit uncharted. Today, it's no better than harassing your parole officer.

"Core iX" might have been very old and might have become boring but it's both short, sound and unique. And it makes sense to wide public!

This new naming system will only confuse the buyers which in spite of won't result in better sells.

 

[Solaris17]

Did it do this at 80w though? Because that would be pretty wild.

Edit: ah 80w lower. That’s still pretty crazy power efficiency over what they’ve had.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

Did it do this at 80w though? Because that would be pretty wild.

The slide suggests it being 80 W less than in 14900K, not 80 W overall.

 

[SL2]

This new naming system will only confuse the buyers which in spite of won't result in better sells.

You don't see a reason for Intel wanting to signal a shift in product characteristics, just this time around?

This is not as if breaking namning converntion after 8700K, that would have been insane.

Right now they have a reputation of selling crazy hot CPU's, and added to that there's hardware degradation as well.

It's not like they want to, I think they have to. Also, five digits is silly.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

You don't see a reason for Intel wanting to signal a shift in product characteristics

Aware buyers: "Welp, it's still Intel."
Unaware buyers: "Welp, it's still Intel."

Right now they have a reputation of selling crazy hot CPU

They decided on the name change before going full bozo with heating specifications. I don't mind name changing, I mind changing it to this prematurity.

there's hardware degradation as well.

Well, yeah, name change will be some truly remarkable absolution fuel in this case!

Also, five digits is silly.

I have no trouble counting. Might take a little time to say it out loud but not like "Core Ultra 9" contributes to time savings any better than good ol' "Core i9."

 

[SL2]

They decided on the name change before going full bozo with heating specifications.

Did they?

I mind changing it to this prematurity.

How do you measure that lol.

Also,
Buyers who love the name: "Welp, it's still Intel."
Buyers who hate the name: "Welp, it's still Intel."

Well, yeah, name change will be some truly remarkable absolution fuel in this case!

No one ever said it was. Intel dropped Pentium 4/D and AMD dropped FX, water under the bridge. No need to reply here, I'm not comparing the products.

I have no trouble counting. Might take a little time to say it out loud but not like "Core Ultra 9" contributes to time savings any better than good ol' "Core i9."

Is there a reason for even saying the full name, for end users? Is this a problem or just OCD?

When I see 13600K in a post it's enough info for me.

 

[T4C Fantasy]

This is before or after the castration of the 14900k with baseline and patches? Imagine if they didn't remove the HT, Arrow Lake would have been on par with Alder Lake from 2021

On the next Q-report Pat will be like:

As I walk through the valley of the silicon and tech
I take a look at my company and realize there's nothin' alright
'Cause I've been crying and begging' for so long that
Even my momma thinks that my career is gone

Tech Paradise

If you downlock the 14900k to what the 285k is wouldnt it be around the same watts?

 

[Upgrayedd]

I'm curious how no HT will be in games. Much better 1% lows? Maybe less stutter in certain games? I'm actually happy about the removal of HT.

 

[Darc Requiem]

This is disappointing if this is true

Basically 285K is 14900K with lower power consumption.

I can't claim to have come up with this but I've seen people post that AMD has given us Zen 5% and Intel has responded with Core Ultra -2.85%

 

[phanbuey]

Isn't there a latency advantage by removing HT?

That's important for gamers, and sound engineers.

There is but it might be counteracted by the latency of the thread getting redirected to and from the e cores.

 

[Karti]

So the overall PC power draw got dropped by 80W, and lost only 2-3FPS to "probably same build" but with 14900k?

if that same thing will be proven by 3rd party reviewers, then it is really a nice thing