Core Ultra 9 285K, performance, temperature and filtered consumption

Reviews of these Intel Arrow Lake-S processors and their Core Ultra 200S are still a few days away, but the data keeps coming in and more leaks are coming. To those added today, which due to their number seem to be exclusive to Intel, we must add one more, where Core Ultra 9 285K assessed its performance, temperature and consumption It was leaked completely and in some detail, but what is curious is that maximum silence reigns in the games.

Rumors are flying behind the scenes and some are talking about a fiasco. We say this because it’s true that some games seem like they’ll have a Core Ultra 200S, but some claim that performance in others is disappointing, on par with the Core 12, and that’s one of the reasons why Intel is trying to hide the reviews before they come out. any leaks. This puts doors on the field, but…

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, performance, temperature and filtered consumption as expected?

Let’s start with the consumption and temperature in an interesting mode like the one we mentioned about the Intel default settings, because as we saw in the previous article, there was a big difference between PL1, PL2 and PL4, especially in the mode Performance
with those 490 W. In the image above posted by HardwareLuxx from MSI, we see the following: With the Intel profile, consumption varies from 242 W to 279 W.which is not exactly an “effective” meaning.

When all parameters are unlocked using the Extreme profile, consumption becomes 303 W and 349 Wwhich is not available for the vast majority of existing common cooling systems. We understand what this is peak values and not sustained.

The most curious and perhaps most striking thing is the temperature.
From 64 degrees it reaches 77 degrees.and this is not normal, because consumption increases by 25% in worst case scenario between both profiles, while temperature rises by only 20%but usually the opposite.

The comparison becomes more interesting between the i9-14900K and the new Core Ultra 9 285K, since taking into account consumption and temperature, without Power Limit, it is clear that there is not only an improvement in consumption, but also, as Intel stated in its presentation, but rather in temperature. With a difference of 25 W, in the worst case we see 15 degrees less.Again, a really interesting tradeoff between efficiency and consumption/temperature that needs to be carefully analyzed.

Cinebench R23 on ST and MT, how fast is this new processor?

Well it is fast, very fast and also on MT with fewer threads than its direct competitor in AMD. Let’s start from ST to the core, where the Core Ultra 9 285K should not only show up at a lower temperature, but also filter by consumption and performance. They are far superior to the Ryzen 9 9950X.maximum AMD.

Actually, in ST it is 10.1% fasteralthough not much more than the i9-14900KS, and shows good distance with the 14900K. Surprising, and a lot, andl Core Ultra 7 265K, similar to the latest generation KS, And Core Ultra 5 245K equals Ryzen 5 9600X and this is 1.8% less than the 9700X. What can they do in MT?

Well, when all cores are running, the differences between all competitors increase, and significantly, but in terms of range they are closer. The Core Ultra 9 285K may be just 2.1% better than the Ryzen 9 9950X and 2.7% faster than the 14900KS.
Surprise given Core Ultra 7 265K, far superior to the Ryzen 9 9900X by almost 14% with fewer threads.

Same for him Core Ultra 5 245K, which gives you 16.5% with the Ryzen 7 9700X and an impressive 35% with the Ryzen 5 9600X. As we said above, these numbers are very good, but unless Intel has any vertical cache versions in the works, and surprisingly, AMD is going to easily beat them with the Ryzen 9000X3D in gaming, which is the main reason to buy PCs in this segment. times in this market segment.