Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and Core 5 245K Review: Intel Throws a Lateral with Arrow Lake

Some good, some not so good.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K
(Image credit: © Tom's Hardware)

Tom's Hardware Verdict

Intel's Core Ultra 9 285K makes strong gains in productivity workloads, but it struggles to match its prior-gen counterpart in gaming performance. That leaves AMD's competing chips as a better value for gaming, while low pricing on the previous-gen Core i9-14900K will provide competition from within Intel's own lineup.

Pros

  • +

    Productivity performance

  • +

    Power consumption and efficiency

  • +

    Support for CUDIMM memory

  • +

    Relaxed cooling requirements

  • +

    Higher memory OC headroom

Cons

  • -

    Pricing

  • -

    Generational regression in gaming performance

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Intel’s flagship $589 Core Ultra 9 285K headlines its new ‘Arrow Lake’ Core Ultra 200S series, leading the charge with 24 cores melded into a completely new chiplet architecture that comes with plenty of new leading-edge tech, like 3D Foveros packaging, support for new DDR5 CUDIMM memory tech, and the first dedicated AI engine fused inside a desktop PC chip. However, our tests found that Arrow Lake struggles to keep pace in gaming with Intel’s own previous-gen Raptor Lake Refresh processors, never mind AMD's chart-topping Zen 4 X3D chips.

Intel says Arrow Lake provides an up to 150W reduction in system power during gaming and other improvements, like a claimed 20% gain in threaded horsepower and a 5% gain in single-thread performance over the prior-gen, which helps offset the lack of gen-on-gen gaming gains. We put those claims to the test across 14 games on the following page, not to mention a slew of productivity benchmarks.

The Intel launch comes on the heels of AMD’s tepid Zen 5 Ryzen 9000 launch, which saw AMD’s newest chips providing limited generational gaming improvements, so they couldn’t quite catch up to Intel. Naturally, given the performance we’ve seen with Intel’s new chips, AMD’s Zen 5 processors, which recently had pricing adjustments and firmware/OS enhancements, look much more promising than before — at least compared to Intel’s new chips. However, AMD also has its Ryzen 9000X3D processors slated for release early next month, and they will almost certainly be the new gaming performance champions.

That’s not to say that the Core Ultra 200S series doesn’t have its own charms. Intel employs a range of TSMC nodes for the different chiplets (called "tiles" in Intel parlance) in Arrow Lake. In fact, this marks Intel’s first mainstream desktop PC chip entirely fabricated using another company’s process node technology. Intel combines the more efficient process nodes with a radical new CPU core design that intersperses E-core clusters among the P-cores and discards Hyper-Threading entirely, thus claiming to deliver drastic power reductions that will result in a cooler and quieter PC.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Intel 'Arrow Lake' Core Ultra 200S Series — Pricing and Specifications

CPU

Street (MSRP)

Arch

Cores / Threads (P+E)

P-Core Base / Boost Clock (GHz)

E-Core Base / Boost Clock (GHz)

Cache (L2/L3)

TDP / PBP or MTP

Memory

Core Ultra 9 285K

$589

Arrow Lake

24 / 24 (8+16)

3.7 / 5.7

3.2 / 4.6

76MB (40+36)

125W / 250W

DDR5-6400

Core Ultra 7 265K / KF

$394 / $379

Arrow Lake

20 / 20 (8+12

3.9 / 5.5

3.3 / 4.6

66MB (36+30)

125W / 250W

DDR5-6400

Core Ultra 5 245K / KF

$309 / $294

Arrow Lake

14 / 14 (6+8)

4.2 / 5.2

3.6 / 4.6

50MB (26+24)

125W / 250W

DDR5-6400

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • TheHerald
    Insane efficiency in MT tasks, but gaming is a big fat nothing burger / even worse than 14th gen. For non gaming workloads, both the i5 and the i9 look amazing, for gamers, dont bother.
    Reply
  • Elusive Ruse
    Thank you for the detailed review @PaulAlcorn :beercheers:
    From what I can see the launch prices of the 285K start at $620 though not $589.
    Reply
  • Bluoper
    Honestly if they brought the pricing to be closer to current 14th gen pricing, these would be a good option if power draw is a concern. I dont think the gaming performance drops are as bad as i thought they would be, and honestly the gaming performance is fine for %99 of poeple. Hopefuly we see gaming improvments in the next gen without power draw increasing. I like the direction their going in, but i dont think this is really a compelling upgrade for anyone 12th gen and up.
    Reply
  • usertests
    TheHerald said:
    Insane efficiency in MT tasks,
    If it's insane, Ryzen is super insane by being even more efficient.
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    Talk about "hold my beer" moments... Holy cow. I thought it was going to be bad, but not THIS bad.

    I hope Intel irons out all the reported and shown issues in multiple reviews and get it to a better place, but as an initial showing, makes Zen5 a friggen home run.

    And thanks a lot Paul. Great data as always and I'll definitely check later when the missing bits and bobs are added :D

    Regards.
    Reply
  • TheHerald
    usertests said:
    If it's insane, Ryzen is super insane by being even more efficient.
    You sure about that?

    From computerbase de

    Reply
  • Amdlova
    Got one 14700t for 283usd what I see will have a little less performance than this core ultra with less power wasted. The T family's aways stuck at 65w power max when set the pl1 to max allowed power.
    Will wait till ddr6 and pcie 6 droops on desktop yo upgrade.
    Reply
  • AndrewJacksonZA
    Thanks for the write-up, Paul! IMO, Intel did what AMD did with their 9xxx series: they laid the foundations for future gens, with workstation and server workloads sped up first.

    "Sorry gamers, tough luck this round."

    I like this: "We also can't help but wonder how a future Intel CPU that incorporates a cache chiplet — similar to AMD's X3D line — might change the picture."
    I think we've seen examples how a large cache, when wisely implemented, can benefit workloads from both AMD and Intel before.
    Reply
  • ingtar33
    TheHerald said:
    You sure about that?

    From computerbase de

    computerbase.de clearly made a mistake. those numbers don't match anyone else.

    They probably are only measuring the power draw at the 8 pin cpu power plug. apparently this chip draws a lot of it's power from the 24pin, something you wouldn't notice unless you measured system power draw everywhere.
    Reply
  • logainofhades
    Kinda sad that, for gaming, this isn't really all that much better than my 12700k. It feels like 2nd-7th gen all over again with meager improvement, except AMD this time isn't losing.
    Reply