Intel Core Ultra 9 285: What Real Users Actually Think

Solid productivity chip I think, although the 265k still seems like a better value.

I'm puzzled why they decided to even release these?

Well done Intel! Achieving slower gaming performance than AMD's now two generation older CPU (5800x3D) while still using more than double power. It seems like the node wasn't the only issue that was holding intel back.

What a cluster fxxk — game performance regression, matching 7700X? For an i9 price? geez.

I upgraded my CPU from an i9-9900K to the new Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and OMG the difference is insane. Premiere and After Effects feel like completely different programs now. For the first time ever, I was able to play back the entire project at full res, no proxies, 4K 30fps 10-bit H.265, dynamic link comps, Lumetri — the whole 9 yards.

Fuck intel and their new motherboard all the time shit.

Intel relying on microsoft for scheduler improvements really massacred the potential of heterogeneous designs. AMD learned this the hard way when they shipped Zen and microsoft just never bothered preventing unnecessary hopping between CCDs.

It's a solid chip. Definitely not the fastest in gaming but for productivity use, this cpu has its place.

The core Ultra 9 only has 8 P-cores same as the Core Ultra 7. The only difference between a 265k and 285k is the 285k has 4 measly extra E-cores for almost double the price. No value here.

It's amazing how much of a nothing burger Arrow Lake ended up being. Kinda embarrassing when you consider all the packaging tech they developed which is good in theory but can't possibly be cheap to produce vs AMD's simple CPU/interconnect chiplet approach.

The 265k is the only one worth considering. It's like $250 and is pretty much just as good as the 285k. By the time you're at 285k money it's 9800x3D or 9900x or 7950x territory.

It's not necessary for consumers to buy an inferior product from a multibillion dollar company now backed by the global superpower's government.

Still makes zero sense to buy this if you're just using it for gaming. What a weird way to advertise this. It's more like a 'prosumer' chip that is decent for gaming.

I own a 285k and I can say the stock experience is average, but the platform is great and coming from 14900k, the temps and power efficiency are impressive. Once fully tuned, 9000c38 A-die, 36 d2d and 34 ngu, gaming is on par with 14900k, but more efficient. I think nova lake will be amazing.

Very disappointing because I was hoping for a CPU that was at least capable of getting close to those AMD X3D chips in gaming while at the same time being much faster in multi-threaded stuff. I need such a CPU badly, but the game performance here is just too poor.

I went into Microcenter last year looking to buy a 9800x3d but AMD's mATX motherboard selection there is abysmal, and the 265k was less than half the price for significantly better non-gaming performance. I'm loving it. It's pretty power-efficient, and I'm not gonna notice a difference between 149 and 162 fps.

The biggest issue was that it was crippled by the ported meteor lake memory controller dies its that simple.

AMD CPUs generally didn't have performance regressions. These ones do — some games like Cyberpunk are literally 20% down from last gen. It would make sense if these were $100-200 cheaper across the board.

Looks like a strong CPU for productivity and business use case. For gaming we are better off with the Ryzen 3D CPUs.

I said 3 years ago that Intel has until 2025 to convince me that they turned the ship around. 12th Gen was a promising step but they have to execute multiple gens well to fix what's broken. Looks like Intel's got a long-term storm to weather now.

My same experience with both of my 265k systems. They have been extremely stable for me and very efficient. Never have to worry about temps and they perform well with a 5080 and 9070XT. Contrary to all the media rhetoric I enjoy gaming with them.

None of the youtubers mentioned about core-to-core latency, improvements on the schedulers and execution ports setup. The e-cores are really great in a 4 group cluster.

The price is just a slap in the face. Talk about tone deaf.

I think Intel deserves the criticism they're getting here. The sheer lack of performance, the need to purchase a new motherboard when this socket may be a one and done, and Intel's handling of Raptor Lake — these are all legitimate concerns.

Its not older, one is locked and the other is unlocked for overclocking and has higher TDP - hence the K SKU and being faster overall. This is literally every intel CPU generation since X58 was the top dog 20 years ago, this is nothing new.

The thing that holds me back from switching over to AMD continues to be questionable to no Thunderbolt support. It is extremely difficult to find reliable answers to questions surrounding AMD and Thunderbolt, and for someone who is dependent on it, Intel remains the safer choice.

I've installed a couple in Intel optimized applications for a client of mine. It's not 13th/14th gen problems bad — we hit silicon degradation to instability in under 6 months on more than half our 13900k/14900k deployment — but for the ~$600 you're spending on it, I'd rather just have the 16 normal cores in the 9950x.

I like my 265K. It performs well for my purposes and has reduced my personal power consumption considerably vs AM4. It is behind AM5 in my testing for broad term 'gaming' when specifically chasing framerates, but compared to a 9700X or 9800X3D it is absolutely stellar at doing stuff while doing other stuff.

I've messed with the 265k and it is very solid for productivity. Great ram compatibility and the e cores oc really well.

It's actually the best it's put out in a while. Unless you only care about gaming. Some of us actually do work on our computers.

Just for gaming (and it has improved with the newer bios and optimizations). The Ultra 9 285, even the non K variant, surpasses the 9950X3D for most productivity tasks.

AI has managed to spread into processors like it has everywhere else, for better or worse. This means you get an NPU to offload some Intel AI-compatible tasks. I've yet to see where this is actually useful, because I would normally look to my NVIDIA GPU to handle local AI workloads via CUDA.

From what I've read, the Core Ultra Series is generally a modest downgrade in gaming performance compared to 13th/14th gen, but equal or better productivity performance without the absurdly-high power draw of the 13700K-14900K. Most of the popular tech channels focus on gaming, so coupled with the high launch price and rumours of a one-and-done socket, Arrow Lake hasn't been received too well.

You didn't make the right choice lol. You bought like the worst generation Intel has put out in a while.

I have a 285K/4090/128GB system and it absolutely rips. Idles super low power draw too, no idea how.

These chips are so powerful you have nothing to worry about. It's like being worried about if the Ferrari you want is 0.1 second slower on the 0 to 60 versus the Lambo you're considering. You're gonna be happy.

Thing is treating me very nicely, with benchmarks running I'm getting around 85c and during gaming my temps are hovering around 60c. I'm using an arctic liquid freezer 3 pro 240. It's smoking my old 13600k in gaming and workstation tasks.

I'm 3 months in to using my latest 265K-based build. I've been happy with it. The 265K gives you most of what the 285K offers, but at a significantly lower price.

Seems to be pretty strong in non gaming tasks and its power use is lower than the last gen. If productivity is what counts the most and you get it for a decent price, it could be a win.

285K seems to have fantastic workstation performance. We landed on 265K, it benches very favorably compared to AM5 parts in nearly every workload except for gaming, and even then, that's mostly the X3D parts, and even then, that's when there is virtually no GPU bottleneck. Most initial 'gaming' reviews were done exclusively with 5090s, which is extremely unrealistic for most gamers.

I literally just got the 285k as well! After effects is a dream to work on now.

This isn't going to be something you'll notice gaming. It's on par with a 14900k. At 1440p and above you're gonna be gpu limited in games except for maybe a handful of games like flight simulator. Reviews didn't like it because it wasn't an improvement over a 14900k in performance, it's just more efficient.

I think it's interesting, but overall seems like a fumble for Intel, which can generally be chalked up to weirdness with the new architecture changes. It seems to excel in some niche scenarios but just isn't very competitive, even against their own older chips. There isn't much of a reason to not buy AMD AM5 right now given the more mature platform.