Although bloggers’ opinions on the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K were divided, this processor managed to become a bestseller (too few of them were brought to Ukraine) upon release, and at the time of writing the review it is a scarce product. What did the new architecture bring, what impact does the 3-nanometer technical process have, and can Arrow Lake be called successful after the not very stable Raptor Lake and Raptor Lake Refresh? Looking ahead, the processor is indeed ambiguous, but definitely better than some media outlets focused only on video games managed to tell about it.
Content
| Technical specifications | |
| Lithography | TSMC N3B |
| Platform | Intel LGA 1851 |
| Chipset support | Z890, B860, H810 |
| Number of P-cores | 8 |
| Number of E-cores | 16 |
| Number of threads | 24 |
| Base frequency of P-Cores | 3.7 GHz |
| Turbo frequency P-Cores | 5.7 GHz |
| Base frequency of E-Cores | 3.2 GHz |
| Turbo frequency P-Cores | 4.6 GHz |
| Level 3 cache | 36 MB |
| RAM type | DDR5 6400 MT/s |
| Maximum RAM | 192 GB |
| Integrated graphics | Intel Graphics |
| PCI-E version | 5.0 |
| Maximum PCI-E lanes | 24 |
| Base TDP | 125 W |
| Maximum TDP | 250 W |
| Additionally | NPU module 13 TOPS |
| Recommended price | 589$ |
We tested the new product together with the following components:
Since the processor came for review with the MSI Enthusiast Gaming kit, the box it came in is not typical. A cardboard parallelepiped with a huge amount of foam inside contains the processor itself and special pliers for its installation. The processor is not cheap, the motherboard is also very expensive, so such a tool will not be superfluous for those whose hands shake during such operations.
Standard boxed versions sold in stores also do not have a boxed cooler. Although the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K turned out to be economical, a large 250+ W tower or a 240, 280 or 360 mm liquid cooling system is still recommended for it.
Performance was tested in different modes, and the best results were recorded in the table. All benchmarks were run without extreme overclocking, but only with the recommended parameters from the motherboard manufacturer. That is, a kind of overclocking, but for every day, and not for experiments and records. The increased multiplier +5 for E-Cores and +3 for P-Cores are normal conditions for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K.
| Benchmark / Mode | Result |
| Geekbench Single | 3403 |
| Geekbench Multi | 24534 |
| CPU-Z Single | 905 |
| CPU-Z Multi | 19685 |
| Cinebench 2024 Single | 141 |
| Cinebench 2024 Multi | 2450 |
| Blender Benchmark CPU | 582 |
| Blender Benchmark iGPU | 332 |
| Corona 1.3 | 39 seconds |
| Speedometer 3 | 34.4 |
| Google Octane 2.0 | 124037 |
| WebXPRT 4 | 348 |
| Geekbench Open CL iGPU | 24755 |
| Geekbench Vulkan iGPU | 27028 |
The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K processor turned out to be ambiguous, as evidenced by various benchmarks. In some tests, the novelty easily bypasses the flagships of competitors and its predecessors, while in others the results are disappointing. Let’s start with the negative, namely browser benchmarks.
There is a suspicion that the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K uses energy-efficient cores in the browser because the results of Speedometer 3.0, Google Octane 2.0 and WebXPRT 4 are not impressive. Perhaps this is a problem with the Windows task scheduler, or in the next BIOS updates this will be fixed. 35 points in Speedometer 3.0 is abnormally low for a processor with such productive cores.
In Geekbench, everything falls into place, and with a slight overclocking (MSI Extreme automatic profile), the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K easily overtakes the Intel Core i9-14900K, not to mention the 13900K and 12900K. The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D processor per core still turned out to be a little faster, if we consider the overclocking on the ASRock X870E Taichi motherboard. But in multicore tests, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K confidently comes out ahead.
The difficult Cinebench 2024 benchmark shows the full power of the new flagship. It doesn’t just take the lead among x86 processors, but does it with a clear and confident lead. The Multi Core gain compared to the Intel Core i9-14900K was 10%, and the 285K is almost twice as fast as the 9800X3D in this test, despite the fact that the price of the scarce AMD Ryzen is higher.
The hero of the review is also fast on a single core, on par with the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X, but still lags far behind Apple’s ARM processors, which remain unattainable for the most powerful x86 computers of today. It is also interesting that the base version of the M4 in the Mac Mini for about $600 scores 178 points (the best result ever).
The integrated graphics in the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K turned out to be several times more productive than its predecessor. In synthetic tests, we get a result at the level of the AMD Radeon 760M. The integrated graphics also overclock quite well. Without any special difficulties, the frequency was raised from 2000 to 2500 MHz, which added 15-20% of performance. This is probably the first generation of Intel flagships in which you will not want to buy the KF versions (without integrated graphics).
In Blender Benchmark, the integrated graphics are weaker than the processor, but it is still beneficial to use it if you don’t have a discrete adapter. Power consumption with the iGPU will be lower, so it is still a good option for processing not too heavy projects.
But there was also a negative experience with iGPU use, associated with graphical artifacts on the desktop. If the image was normal during the game Counter Strike, then in the browser or office programs you can see strange flickering, like the effect of radiation in STALKER 2: Heart of Chornobyl. The behavior of this phenomenon is random because sometimes the problem disappeared by itself, and then appeared from somewhere, only to disappear again a minute later.
With Intel Core Ultra 9 285K RAM works great. On the MSI MEG ACE Z890 motherboard, we got up to 125 GB/s with the 8200CL40 XMP profile enabled and the MSI Memory Extension feature. It is also interesting that the base RAM frequency for Intel LGA 1851 is now considered 6400 MT/s, not 4800/5200 MT/s. In this regard, AMD competitors are noticeably weaker.
Also in this generation, for the first time among Intel desktop processors, an NPU module appeared, designed to help when working with artificial intelligence. At this stage, this is a useful option only for developers because there are few applications for the typical user (non-specialist).
Unless it’s a webcam background blur, or some auxiliary options in graphic editors. The main thing is that the NPU consumes little energy, which means that in theory the PC should become even more economical, without resorting to the services of a discrete graphics card and without loading the processor.
| Benchmark / Mode | Result |
| Davinci Resolve 10GB x265 | 5m 52s |
| Davinci Resolve AMD+ 10GB x265 | 3m 20s |
| Gigapixel 5×18 MP x4 scale CPU + dGPU | 56 seconds |
| Gigapixel 5×18 MP x4 scale CPU | 8m 26s |
| Lightroom 100x RAW > JPG, Quality 100% | 29 seconds |
Few workloads use the CPU exclusively, so the results of many tests will also depend on the overall configuration of the computer. With the maximum GPU priority in Davinci Resolve, the system exported a 10 GB x265 FHD file in 3 minutes and 20 seconds (almost 100% GPU load), while with CPU priority, the process took 5 minutes and 52 seconds. At least this is faster than the Apple tablet, although it also consumes significantly more energy.
Upscaling to 280 MP in Gigapixel AI is better done with a discrete graphics card, because the difference relative to the processor is almost tenfold. Similar proportions will be maintained for almost all neural networks. For working with photos, the Ultra 9 285K is perfect. We export 100 RAW images of 20-30 MB each to Adobe Lightroom in just 30 seconds, while setting the JPG quality to 100%. Applying various effects in any quantity has almost no effect on the result, except within the margin of error.
In video games, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is still strong, although the company does not position its processors as gaming solutions. We tested the capabilities of the review hero at 1920x1080p resolution to reduce the likelihood of a full load on the AMD RX 7900 XTX. At 3840x2160p or 2560x1440p, the dependence on the GPU will be even greater.
Alan Wake 2 easily loads the graphics card at 100%, even without Path Tracing. Do you need 200+ FPS in a game with slow gameplay? Of course not.
Arma 3 is notorious for its poor optimization, and with mods it can bring any CPU to its knees. With Ultra 9, the 285K still managed more than 100 FPS on average, which is excellent for this game.
Call of Duty Black Ops 6 fully loads the video card, delivering up to 240-250 FPS in multiplayer. We chose esports graphics settings, like all successful players, so we got a K/D of 1.8.
Counter Strike 2 runs smoothly, but the frames are much lower than on AMD with 3D cache. In competitive mode with 10 players, the FPS will be even higher, but 340-350 FPS is still a lot for Deathmatch mode.
Cyberpunk 2077 distributes the load well across all cores, so with ultra graphics, we get up to 190 FPS, and the processor heats up quite a bit (up to 73-77 °C) with a power consumption of 150+ W.
Horizon Forbidden West also runs without any problems, although the framerate graph is perfectly flat only without GPU throttling, i.e. on low or medium settings with 230+ FPS.
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 has noticeably better graphics and optimization compared to MFS 2020, but there is also a nuance associated with the small size of the game on disk and a high dependence on servers. This is the first game that does not require a 100 Mbps connection to run smoothly, as textures are loaded on the fly from the “cloud”.
The PUBG engine, although luxurious in terms of mechanics, is far from the best optimization. The frame rate fluctuates several times, so in some places it can exceed 300 FPS, and sometimes drops to 120-130 FPS.
The Ukrainian strategy game Cossacks 3 will definitely drop the frame rate below 60 FPS in large-scale battles. It’s not surprising because even the best gaming processor of today (AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D) cannot cope with this task.
In Naraka Bladepoint, the player is guaranteed to get 200-250 FPS in battles with rare dips to 180-190 FPS. The frametime is not perfectly smooth, but there are no freezes. The gameplay is smooth and enjoyable.
STALKER 2: Heart of Chornobyl is not yet excellent at optimization, but rather disappointing. The hero of the review is able to deliver 100+ FPS without a frame generator, but only with low graphics settings. At the same time, the game “ate” an inadequate amount of RAM (25 GB!).
Review of “STALKER 2: Heart of Chornobyl”. We waited for a reason!
The mod from amateur developers Fall of The Republic for Star Wars Empire at War is surprising in its optimization, or rather its lack thereof. In this game, the most powerful computers of today produce 25-30 FPS, and that with a terrible frametime graph.
AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D showed only a few FPS better results, which proves once again that software decides everything, and the best hardware without high-quality optimization is just plain PCB and garbage. We talked about this in more detail in the article “Processor, video card or game engine? Looking for a “bottleneck” in gaming systems”.
Starfield has much better optimization compared to the release version, so we can easily get 100-130 FPS with ultra graphics, and if you add a frame generator, the frametime becomes much smoother, and the frame rate almost doubles.
The Witcher 3 in the city center produces an average of 150-170 FPS, the graphics card is not fully loaded. Interestingly, the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D significantly loses to the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K in this game, especially in places with many NPCs.
Finally, it’s worth mentioning the Unreal Engine 5 demo The Matrix, which worked horribly, showing abnormally poor results (as if on a 10-year-old CPU), even though the processor was loaded at 60-70%.
In addition to the classic tests with a discrete graphics card, we tested the capabilities of the integrated graphics. As it turned out, this iGPU is enough for many games, especially online.
On the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, you can play WoW, LoL, Valorant, Counter Strike 2, WoT, Fall Guys, Fortnite, Naraka Bladepoint and many other video games with integrated graphics, as if with a video card of the Nvidia GTX 1050 Ti level. However, the amount of video memory is unlimited.
In addition to the positive experience, there were also nuances with compatibility. For example, in Horizon Forbidden West, graphic artifacts appeared, problematic textures, and in Starfield everything became dark, almost black. In Arma 3, there were minor nuances with shadows, although the performance is enough. Some old games crashed after loading a game scene, such as Star Wars Empire at War or Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light.
High energy efficiency is one of the main advantages of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, but only against the background of LGA 1700. The conventional AMD Ryzen 9 7900 with a TDP of 90 W has a significantly higher level of performance per unit of energy consumed, but relative to its Raptor Lake predecessors, the new Arrow Lake series turned out to be truly economical.
In the basic Intel profile, the processor consumes 250 W, and with MSI Extreme settings, this limit increases to 295 W. During light (without FPU tick) stress tests, Aida 64 sensors show 250+ W of power consumption, but in Cinebench 2024 you can see 270-280 W.
In the standard Aida 64 test, the processor temperature did not exceed 70 °C, which is abnormally low, but with the FPU the sensors showed 85 °C, as in Cinebench 2024. During typical use (browser, office programs, watching videos, etc.), the CPU temperature is about 30-35 °C.
Dissipating heat from the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is incredibly easy, so the MSI MAG i360 liquid cooling system easily copes with this task, showing 0% processor throttling . Finally, Intel is cool like in the good old days (can we call that the period of total market dominance?).
After the Intel Core i9-14900K, which instantly hits the 100 °C limit, and the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X, which wants liquid metal for low temperatures, the new product looks very attractive. High performance, moderate power consumption, low temperatures, and a productive iGPU as a gift.
The only negative points during the week of using the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K were the long boot time of the computer with the MSI MEG Z890 ACE motherboard. Sometimes strange artifacts of the integrated graphics card appeared, as I wrote about above.
Whatever some media outlets may say, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is a good processor, at least because it’s the only flagship that can be cooled by any mid-range cooler. It’s nice to see such low temperatures, knowing that the computer has the fastest processor in the world (at least in most tests).
As an AMD fan and owner of the AM5 platform, I liked using LGA 1851 with the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K. This processor can be confidently recommended for workstations, although for fun there are more interesting LGA 1700 options for less money (for example, the Intel Core i5-13600K), which are more than enough for demanding gamers.
In Ukraine, Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is difficult to find, as the first small batch was sold out in a few days. High demand is due to the novelty of the platform, so prices will be inflated until the supply/demand ratio stabilizes.
The predecessor Intel Core i9-14900K is asking 22,000–23,000 hryvnias, and the Intel Core i9-13900K can be purchased for 18,000–20,000 hryvnias. There is also a larger selection of motherboards for these processors.
The scarce AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is also not easy to find on sale. Because of this, its cost is about 30,000 hryvnias. A worthy alternative, although it needs better cooling.
AMD Ryzen 9 9950X Review: The World’s Most Powerful 16-Core Processor
A compromise, but still relevant choice is the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X. Of course, it loses to the hero of the review in all parameters and in all benchmarks, but the price of 22,500 hryvnias takes its toll. For game lovers, there is the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, but the price is noticeably higher – 28,000 – 32,000 hryvnias.