Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, 8P+16E/24T, 3.70-5.70GHz, tray

Intel macht mit Arrow Lake einen technologischen Fortschritt, bleibt jedoch in der Praxis hinter den Erwartungen zurück, da die Leistungsunterschiede zum Raptor-Lake-Refresh nur im einstelligen Prozentbereich liegen und die alte Generation in Spielen teils sogar schneller ist. Trotz besserer Effizienz und Temperaturen ist AMD weiterhin die bessere Wahl, insbesondere im Hinblick aufs Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis.

Heute ist es so weit und Intels Core-Ultra-200S-Serie alias Arrow Lake muss zeigen, wie gut man gegen AMDs Ryzen-9000-Serie aufgestellt ist und ob Intels neuer Fokus auf die Effizienz sinnvoll umgesetzt werden konnte. Bereits mit der Vorstellung vor genau zwei Wochen und Intels eigenen Benchmarks wurde offenbart, dass Intel den Anspruch der Spitzenposition weitestgehend aufgegeben hat. Wo die Stärken und Schwächen der neuen Auslegung und von Arrow Lake als Design liegen, schauen wir uns auf den kommenden Seiten an.

Gerade im Testlabor eingetroffen sind Core Ultra 9 285K, Core Ultra 7 265K und Core Ultra 5 245K. Arrow Lake soll laut Intel nicht nur effizienter, sondern auch schneller als Raptor (14. Core Gen.) sein.

Intel Core Ultra 200S alias Arrow Lake-S ist in Form der K-CPUs Core Ultra 9 285K, Ultra 7 265K und Ultra 5 245K ab sofort verfügbar. Der umfassende Test mit aktualisierten Benchmarks aller drei Prozessoren im Vergleich zur 14. Gen Core, AMD Ryzen 9000, 7800X3D und 5800X3D legt die Stärken und Schwächen offen.

Endlich ist es soweit und die Ergebnisse für Intels neue Core Ultra 200-Serie liegen auf dem Tisch. Ich kann schon einmal spoilern, dass wir heute im Vergleich zu AMDs Ryzen 9000-Serie sehr interessante, aber teils gemischte Ergebnisse sehen werden, insbesondere im Bereich Gaming. Die Spannungskurve war auch bei mir extrem angespannt und so kam es am Ende dann auch, wie es unter solchen Umständen wohl kommen musste: Ratlosigkeit, Erstaunen, Freude und Enttäuschung als Quartetto Infernale in trauter Runde. Man war so ziemlich hin und her gerissen.

Energieeffizienz auf Kosten der Gaming-Performance. Intels neuer Core Ultra 9 285 Prozessor auf Basis der Arrow Lake-S Architektur führt ein neues Compute Tile Layout ein, das auf Hyperthreading verzichtet und mit deutlichen Effizienzsteigerungen überzeugen will. Während der Core Ultra 9 285K bei der reinen CPU-Leistung und Effizienz punkten kann, verliert er in Spielen deutlich gegen Intels hauseigenen Raptor Lake-S Refresh und die AMD Zen 5 Ryzen 9000 Serie.

KitGuru recently gave an update about the fixes Intel has put in place for its troubled family of Core Ultra 200S CPUs. After a fair amount of testing we delivered a video that clearly struck a chord with our audience so we went away and did even more testing. And now, finally, months after the original launch, we are ready to review the Core Ultra 9 285K, Core Ultra 7 265K and Core Ultra 5 245K.

Earlier this month Intel officially announced their next generation of desktop processors. They were formally known as Arrow Lake and now have their new CPU naming as their Core Ultra 200 Series of CPUs. These are the successors to the 14th-generation Core CPUs and the new naming is going to be a little confusing to some as it is not only the addition of Ultra in the naming but the CPU numbers themselves which have followed the same format for 14 generations are changing as well. This includes dropping the number of numbers in the CPU name down to three from 5. The two CPUs that they sent over for testing at launch are the Core Ultra 9 285K and the Core Ultra 5 245K. This generation's focus according to Intel is to reset their performance per watt trajectory. They have a new memory controller, new P and E core microarchitectures, larger P-core L2 cache, and more. So let’s dive in and see how the new CPUs perform!

Unfortunately, since I never got to test or even use the 14900K/KS CPU (nor the latest 7000x3D and 9000 CPUs by AMD for that matter - hopefully the 9000x3D variants will make it here) I can't do a direct comparison of the latest Intel Core Ultra 200S CPUs with those. Still, I have the next best thing (previous lines) and well, compared to those Intel has clearly taken a step forward, not just in terms of processing power (large gap in some tests, not so large in others) but also power consumption and thermals. Almost 100W difference in power consumption between the Core i9-13900K (5.8GHz) and the Core Ultra 9 285K (5.7GHz) is by no means a small feat while in terms of thermals a 5-degree difference may not seem much (Intel states roughly 12-13 degrees difference with the 14900K but that's obviously not something I can comment on) but coupled with the higher processing power is actually a very good result. As for the Core Ultra 245K at 121W max power consumption at load and temperatures in the high 60's it could be the ideal choice for people who want one of the new Z890 motherboards (features) and just don't want to spend much on a CPU (gaming performance is also very good). Overclocking as Intel has stated has become more detailed and, in a way, easier to perform (and far more stable, no blue screens after finalizing clocks and voltages) although there are far too many options (even regarding the RAM) which may confuse some users but will almost certainly satisfy others (unless you're an enthusiast or serious gamer overclocking is something I wouldn't recommend since these CPUs like all recent lines do that on their own when needed quite effectively). All said and done yes, it seems Intel didn't focus much in the gaming end of the new Core Ultra 200S CPUs (ditching hyperthreading might have affected gaming performance) but rather in power consumption, thermals, processing power and new features like A.I (which I expect to be useful for many professionals out there). Even so I doubt people who might need the extra processing power and features (both of the CPU and the Z890 chipset) will have an issue with their gaming performance (I'm one of those people to be honest). Last but not least the integrated graphics used in the new Core Ultra 200S CPUs might not be anything special, but they are certainly a step towards the right direction (although it might be a while before we see integrated graphics accelerators capable of fluid gaming, even at Full HD resolution). Personally, I believe that the new Core Ultra 200S series is the beginning of something that could be quite unique, a test if you will of a new “breed” of CPUs, the sole issue however in an industry moving so fast is as always time. The Intel Core Ultra 200S CPUs should be available today and in terms of cost the Core Ultra 9 285K model will set you back roughly USD600 inside the USA and 650Euros inside the EU, a price tag which is more or less what everyone was expecting from the flagship model. On the other hand, the Core Ultra 5 245K model will set you back around USD320 inside the USA and 340Euros inside the EU so it’s a much more affordable choice. Pricing is obviously not an issue I have with the new Core Ultra 200S series CPUs (they are exactly what I was expecting based on past models), my issue is with overall gaming performance since I was obviously expecting something more. Again, I don’t expect this to be a game breaker for people who could use the extra processing power (and the AI NPU units) but it’s a whole different story when it comes to gamers. Overall, although they could be better the brand new Core Ultra 200S series CPUs by Intel are clearly a step up compared to their predecessors and for that they deserve the Golden Award.

Will Intel manage to turn the tide, which is against it this period, in its favour, with the new Arrow Lake CPUs? In today’s review I look at the flagship model of the line, the Core Ultra 9 285 to check if it manages to offer something that will lead Intel again back on track. Read the full review to see whether the new CPUs will be Intel’s salvation or disaster.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and Ultra 5 245K review: gaming losses, content creation wins

At the end of the day, the new Intel Core Ultra Desktop Processors Series 2 shows great power efficiency, great temperatures, and also great performance. The Core Ultra 9 285K excels in efficiency and thermal performance, making it a solid upgrade for users on older platforms like the Core i9-12900K. However, if you’re already using the i9-13900K or 14900K, the gains may not be substantial unless efficiency is a priority. The Core Ultra 7 265KF offers powerful performance at a more affordable price, making it ideal for those with budget constraints, especially if you’re upgrading from a 12th Gen CPU or older. It’s a great middle-ground for users seeking a solid performance boost for both work and gaming. Meanwhile, the Core Ultra 5 245KF shines as the most balanced option in terms of price and performance, maintaining Intel’s tradition of delivering great value for mainstream users. Its predecessor dominated recommendations, and the 245KF continues this trend. Overall, the Intel Core Ultra Series 2 is an interesting step forward from what we have seen from Intel this time, offering a range of options that cater to both budget-conscious users and those seeking top-tier performance. Whether you’re upgrading from an older generation or looking for efficient, modern computing power, Intel’s new lineup deserves serious consideration.