Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs. Intel Core i9-14900K

In with the new, but is it out with the old?

Share

We may earn a commission if you make a purchase from a Club386 link.
See our ethics statement.

There’s only one way to determine performance uplifts whenever a new generation of CPUs rolls around: a good, old-fashioned head-to-head. Pitting Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs. Intel Core i9-14900K lets us easily see where you should sink your hard-earned cash – if you should upgrade at all.

At first sight, it doesn’t look like much has changed under the hood, but there’s more than meets the eye here. After all, Intel wouldn’t opt for an entire series name change without something in store. Still, the Arrow Lake flagship has big shoes to fill, given the last of the i9s remains one of the best CPUs for content creators.

Specs

Core Ultra 9 285KCore i9-14900K
Cores24 (8P+16E)24 (8P+16E)
Threads2432
Base TDP125W125W
Max TDP250W253W
L3 Cache36MB36MB
Base clock3.7GHz*3.2GHz*
Boost clock5.7GHz*6.0GHz*
Launch MSRP$579 / £549$589 / £589
*Intel P-core frequencies listed

Core Ultra 9 285K has much that’s new, now using a quad tile-based design pulled over from the mobile firmament. The devil is in the details, though. Compared with Raptor Lake Refresh home to Core i9-14900K, the package on the new processor is smaller, more modular, and includes an NPU (neural processing unit) this time around, while its eight Lion Core performance and 16 Skymont efficient cores are brand new to Arrow Lake.

Breezing past the small discrepancies in frequencies, which are mostly in step with one another, the biggest difference is that Core Ultra 9 285K drops hyperthreading. There’s a method behind the apparent madness, as it’s an efficiency play, avoiding the need for more transistors that would inevitably bump up power consumption. This reduces the thread count from Core i9-14900K by eight, by the way.

Credit where it’s due: Intel has priced the latest processor $10 cheaper than 14900K’s MSRP. However, after a year on the block, i9 has seen a few discounts in its time. Realistically, you can grab the older chip for $440, creating a $139 gap between the two.

Performance

To create this Clash of the Titans, we benchmarked both processors from scratch on top of a freshly updated Windows 11 24H2 platform. Core i9-14900K slots into our trusty ASRock Phantom Gaming Z790 Nova WiFi, while Core Ultra 9 285K sits atop Gigabyte Z890 Aorus Pro Ice – each with the latest BIOS.

Keeping the remaining components identical, they’re both joined by Zotac GeForce RTX 4090 for the visuals and be quiet! Dark Power 13 1,000W for the juice. Arctic Liquid Freezer III 420 keeps them cool, and 64GB (2x32GB) Kingston Fury Beast DDR5-6000 CL36 occupies the memory slots.

Without further ado, let’s get into the tests.

Productivity

Intel Core i9-14900K wins 7-Zip Compression tests with 209,327 MIPs against Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and its 186,457 MIPs - higher is better.

Although headline specs are largely similar between chips, it’s not the greatest start for the Arrow Lake flagship. More threads on Intel Core i9-14900K keep it 12% faster than Core Ultra 9 285K in 7-Zip, which itself pales compared to AMD’s latest in compression tests.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K has a lower computation time of 110.2 in Y-Cruncher, while Intel Core i9-14900K sits higher at 118.9 - lower is better.

Architectural changes, particularly introducing stronger E-cores, help Intel’s latest shine in Y-Cruncher. Core Ultra 9 285K boasts a 7% reduction in computation time over its power-hungry predecessor.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K takes the lead with 3,345 in Geekbench 6 single-core tests, versus Intel Core i9-14900K with 3,246 - higher is better.
Intel Core Ultra 9 285K takes the lead with 22,075 in Geekbench 6 multi-core tests, versus Intel Core i9-14900K with 21,816 - higher is better.

Working its magic, Core Ultra 9 285K inches ahead in Geekbench 6. Granted, it’s not by a large margin, with 3% between the two CPUs in single-core and just 1% in multi-core tests, but it’s a much-needed win. In fact, the Arrow Lake flagship beats all other chips that we’ve tested.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K takes the lead with 6,520 in Geekbench 6 machine learning tests, versus Intel Core i9-14900K with 5,527 - higher is better.

Not one to miss out on the AI hype, Intel packs a dedicated NPU into Core Ultra 200’s tiles, but that’s not what’s at work here. Strangely, Geekbench 6’s machine learning test runs on the CPU, yet Ultra 9 285K still runs away with 18% better scores.

Rendering

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K has more samples per minute in Blender with 556.6 versus Intel Core i9-14900K with 502.4 - higher is better.

Core Ultra 9 285K’s 11% lead in Blender rendering software is enough to instil faith in Arrow Lake. Consider it also runs 62W shy of 14900K, and it becomes a much more impressive feat. 2024 is the year of efficiency, so this comes as no surprise, but it’s still a welcome buff for Team Blue.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K has a better Cinebench 2024 single-core score at 146 versus Intel Core i9-14900K with 137 - higher is better.
Intel Core Ultra 9 285K has a better Cinebench 2024 multi-core score at 2,426 versus Intel Core i9-14900K with 2,169 - higher is better.

Arrow Lake takes a 6.6% lead in single-core and 11.8% improvement in multi-core tests over its predecessor, but the bigger picture is much more telling. Core 9 285K not only beats 14900K in Cinebench 2024 but trounces every other CPU out there in our review, taking pole position in the software.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K gets millions more rays per second in Corona 10 Render software with 13.54m versus Intel Core i9-14900K with 12.06m - higher is better.
Intel Core Ultra 9 285K scores 9,915 in Adobe Photoshop (PugetBench) tests, compared to Intel Core i9-14900K's 9,750 - higher is better.
Intel Core Ultra 9 285K scores 15,126 in Adobe Premiere Pro (PugetBench) tests, compared to Intel Core i9-14900K's 14,296 - higher is better.

Core Ultra’s multi-core performance kicks it with the best, offering 12% more than the year-old i9 in Corona 10. Unfortunately, it’s much harder to parse the two in productivity benchmarks, with as little as 1.7% between the chips.

Memory

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K beats its predecessor in AIDA Memory Bandwidth Read Speed tests with 94,873MB/s versus Intel Core i9-14900K with 94,518MB/s - higher is better.
Intel Core i9-14900K has better AIDA Memory Bandwidth Write speeds better with 88,438MB/s versus Intel Core Ultra 9 285K with 85,397MB/s - higher is better.
Intel Core i9-14900K handles AIDA Memory Bandwidth Latency better with 69.6ns versus Intel Core Ultra 9 285K with 88.4ns - lower is better.

Intel’s latest is a mixed bag when it comes to AIDA Memory benchmarks. On one hand, Core Ultra 9 285K excels in read speeds, but it can’t match its predecessor for writes. For now, it’s tough to tell whether the software has an issue reporting latency with Arrow Lake or it’s simply behind the rest of the pack.

Gaming

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K edges out the competition by scoring 10,308 in 3DMark Speed Way, compared to Intel Core i9-14900K and its score of 10,300 - higher is better.

With Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090 at the graphics helm, all chips we put against 3DMark Speed Way came out with similar results. These are no exception.

Intel Core i9-14900K has a slight advantage in Assassin's Creed Valhalla frame rates at all resolutions compared to Intel Core Ultra 9 285K.

Core i9-14900K takes the cake in Assassin’s Creed Valhalla performance, but it’s tough to call it a decisive loss for Core Ultra 9 285K, with no more than 7fps difference between the two chips at any resolution. This debate becomes particularly muddier when considering the difference in efficiency and price.

Intel Core i9-14900K has a large advantage in Cyberpunk 2077 frame rates at all resolutions except 4K compared to Intel Core Ultra 9 285K.

Despite a small lead at 4K, Arrow Lake doesn’t quite muster the strength to best its predecessor at other resolutions, even when trying Intel APO (Application Optimisation). Instead, 14900K rules the roost with a rather large 15fps jump at HD and 17fps lead at QHD.

Intel Core i9-14900K has a slight advantage in Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail frame rates at all resolutions compared to Intel Core Ultra 9 285K.

Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail prefers Raptor Lake Refresh over its more modern sibling, affording the former flagship a couple of extra frames here and there. You probably won’t notice much difference at no more than 3.6% between them, though.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K takes a small lead in Forza Motorsport, with higher frame rates than Intel Core i9-14900K.

Flipping the script, 14900K doesn’t quite catch its replacement in Forza Motorsport. For a new generation, Core Ultra 9 285K offers lukewarm performance gains between 4-5fps in the racing game, but upwards is upwards.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K takes the lead in Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord, with higher frame rates than Intel Core i9-14900K.

Grabbing the only true win of all our gaming benchmarks, Core Ultra 9 285K runs away with performance in Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord. QHD features the biggest gap, with Arrow Lake earning an average of 30fps more than its sibling, but 23fps more at HD and 9fps at UHD is nothing to scoff at.

This is a testament to the new architecture, given real-time strategy (RTS) games are always a good challenge for CPUs. That said, don’t expect such a stark difference in other more GPU-bound games, as we can see with our other tests.

Efficiency

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K has an idle power consumption of 70W and a load of 306W, undercutting Intel Core i9-14900K with 73W idles and 370W under load - lower is better.

Intel makes good on its promise of efficiency, as system power consumption drops by 17% when moving to Core Ultra 200 at its default 125W/250W settings. It’s the same in games, where there’s a noticeable drop in load wattage. Let’s use Assassin’s Creed Valhalla as an example.

Core Ultra 9 285KCore i9-14900K
FHD370W460W
QHD399W492W
UHD445W512W

For remarkably similar performance, this doesn’t seem a bad trade-off, but there’s a caveat. You could simply cap 14900K’s power in your BIOS to mimic its successor, which doesn’t come at the expense of much performance. Pair this with the fact that both share identical idle draws, where your system will spend most of its time, and this seems less impactful.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K runs at just 80°C underload, versus Intel Core i9-14900K at 92.8°C - lower is better.

Lower power consumption logically equates to lower temperatures, as Arrow Lake comes in 13.8% cooler than Intel’s other CPUs – including 14900K. It doesn’t reach the level of chill AMD’s latest Zen 5 bunch has, but towing the 80°C line means it avoids thermal throttling in intense applications like Cinebench 2024.

Value

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K earns a Club386 CPU Efficiency Rating of 7.93, which vastly outshines Intel Core i9-14900K with 5.86 - higher is better.

By dividing a processor’s Cinebench 2024 multi-core score by its power draw under load, we get Club386’s CPU Efficiency Rating. It’s as clear as day that Core Ultra 9 285K not only laps its predecessor by 35%, but it’s one of the most efficient chips we’ve put to the test where performance is concerned.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K earns a Club386 CPU Value Rating of 3.81, while Intel Core i9-14900K achieves 3.68 - higher is better.

Swap out the power draw for its launch price in the same equation and you get the Club386 CPU Value Rating. This is a much tighter battle where Core Ultra 9 285K just about clinches it by 3.5%. It’s not bad for a launch, but it’s not quite singing the same tune as the rest of the market.

Intel has reduced the price of 14900K to $443 at the time of writing, which is $146 cheaper than it was a year ago at launch. Factor this in, and it drastically changes the Value Rating to 4.89, slingshotting it ahead of its successor by 28%.

A picture of the Core Ultra 9 285K and Core i9-14900K showing heatspreaders.

Conclusion

Prioritising efficiency above all else, Intel Core Ultra 9 285K doesn’t make many performance leaps. As you’d expect for a newer chip, it’s certainly the go-to of the duo if you want AI computation, and it offers an adequate uplift in rendering software. Still, there’s little else to entice an upgrade for those already on a recent enough platform.

If you run a 14900K, my recommendation is to stay put for the time being. Granted, it’s been through its fair share of trials and tribulations with voltage issues, but microcode fixes mean i9 is more stable than ever. Besides, it has the flexibility to scale downwards and meet Core Ultra’s efficiency if you’re fine with power caps.

Considering an upgrade from an older CPU, Arrow Lake has at least some merit. While Intel hasn’t officially committed to the new LGA1851 socket beyond this generation, whispers suggest 2025 and 2026 releases will also support it. This tracks, considering 13th and 14th Gen shared LGA1700. If true, you’ll get access to Thunderbolt 5 off the bat and ready yourself for the future. Meanwhile, opting for 14900K means you’ll need to plan a motherboard swap for whatever comes next, which could offset the $130 saving.

Otherwise, we’re at the end of generational releases for the year, with just Ryzen 9 9800X3D remaining. It’s worth waiting a few weeks to see whether it will truly revolutionise gaming, especially given the lukewarm performance Core Ultra displays in Assassin’s Creed Valhalla, Cyberpunk 2077, and Forza Motorsport.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K retail box.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

Borrowing its multi-tile design from the lauded Lunar Lake architecture, Arrow Lake focuses more on efficiency while minimising sacrificed performance. Read our review.

Intel Core i9-14900K CPU in its retail packaging.

Intel Core i9-14900K

Running with a fully unrestricted performance of up to 330W for just the chip alone, this is one of Intel’s most formidable CPUs around. Read our review.

Damien Mason
Damien Mason
Senior hardware editor at Club386, he first began his journey with consoles before graduating to PCs. What began as a quest to edit video for his Film and Television Production degree soon spiralled into an obsession with upgrading and optimising his rig.

Deal of the Day

Hot Reviews

Preferred Partners

Related Reading