Intel Core Ultra 9 285 VS Intel Core i9 14900
We are comparing the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 (Intel) with the Intel Core i9 14900 (Intel). Scroll down to the pros and cons of each processor, in-depth specs, and benchmark comparisons.
Overall Comparison
KEY DIFFERENCES OF Intel Core Ultra 9 285 AND Intel Core i9 14900
Here’s how Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and Intel Core i9 14900 stack up against each other in their most impactful areas.
Reasons to consider the Intel Core Ultra 9 285
-
7% higher E-core turbo frequency (4600 MHz vs 4300 MHz)
-
25% higher P-core base frequency (2500 MHz vs 2000 MHz)
-
27% higher E-core base frequency (1900 MHz vs 1500 MHz)
-
12% higher Geekbench V6 multi-core score (20165 vs 17953)
-
11% higher Geekbench V6 single-core score (3134 vs 2835)
-
14% more memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s vs 89.6 GB/s)
Reasons to consider the Intel Core i9 14900
-
33% more CPU threads (32 vs 24)
-
4% higher P-core turbo frequency (5800 MHz vs 5600 MHz)
-
100% more performance-core threads (16 vs 8)
SPECIFICATION TABLE COMPARISON OF Intel Core Ultra 9 285 AND Intel Core i9 14900
Below is the detailed specification table comparing Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and Intel Core i9 14900.
Note: Highlighted specs mean that CPU wins that spec row.
If neither side is highlighted, it is a tie or there is not enough data for both specs.
| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 | Intel Core i9 14900 |
|---|---|---|
|
General Information
|
||
| CPU Name: | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 | Intel Core i9 14900 |
| Vendor: | Intel | Intel |
| Release Date: | December 18, 2024 | January 9, 2024 |
| Generation: | Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake) | — |
| Type: | Desktop | Desktop |
| Instruction Set: | x86-64 | x86-64 |
| Codename: | Arrow Lake-S | Raptor Lake Refresh |
| Foundry: | TSMC | — |
|
Package and Thermals
|
||
| Manufacturing Process: | 3 nm | 10 nm |
| Die Size: | 243 mm² | — |
| Transistor Count: | 17.8 billion | — |
| TDP (PL1): | 65 W | 65 W |
| Max Boost TDP (PL2): | 182 W | 219 W |
| Socket: | FCLGA1851 | LGA-1700 |
| Max Temp (TJMax): | 105 C | 100 C |
|
CPU Cores
|
||
|
Total Cores
|
||
| Total Cores | 24 | 24 |
| Total Threads | 24 | 32 |
|
P-Cores
|
||
| P-Cores | 8 | 8 |
| P-Threads | 8 | 16 |
| P-Core Base Frequency | 2500 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| P-Core Turbo Frequency | 5600 MHz | 5800 MHz |
|
E-Cores
|
||
| E-Cores | 16 | 16 |
| E-Threads | 16 | 16 |
| E-Core Base Frequency | 1900 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| E-Core Turbo Frequency | 4600 MHz | 4300 MHz |
|
NPU
|
||
| NPU |
|
|
| NPU TOPS | 13 TOPS | — |
|
Cache and Bus
|
||
| Multiplier | Locked | Locked |
| Bus Frequency | 100 MHz | 100 MHz |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 80 KB |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | 36 MB | 36 MB |
|
Memory Support
|
||
| Memory Types: | DDR5-6400 | DDR5-5600, DDR4-3200 |
| Max Memory Size: | 256 GB | 192 GB |
| Memory Channels: | 2 | 2 |
| Max Memory Bandwidth: | 102.4 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |
| ECC Support: |
|
|
| Technologies: | ABM, ADX, AVX-VNNI, BMI1, BMI2, CLMUL, DLBoost 3.0, F16C, SHA, CFET, EIST, TBMT 3.0, TBT 2.0, TVB, Thread Director, VT-d, VT-rp, VT-x, MBEC, RDRAND, SIPP, TDT, TXT, XD bit, vPro | ABM, ADX, BMI1, BMI2, CLMUL, F16C, SHA, EIST, TBT 2.0, TBT 3.0, TSX, TVB, VT-d, VT-x, RDRAND, TXT, XD bit |
|
Benchmarks
|
||
|
Geekbench V6
|
||
| Multi-Core | 20165 | 17953 |
| Single-Core | 3134 | 2835 |
| File Compression | 1380 | 1260 |
| Clang Compression | 221 | 189 |
| HTML5 Browser | 407 | 390 |
| PDF Renderer | 502 | 487 |
| Text Processing | 356 | 292 |
| Background Blur | 81 | 69 |
| Photo Processing | 141 | 136 |
| Ray Tracing | 47 | 42 |
|
PassMark CPU
|
||
| Multi-Core | — | 44993 |
| Single-Core | — | 4351 |
| Integer Math | — | 177100 |
| Floating Point | — | 121800 |
| Prime Numbers | — | 189 |
| String Sorting | — | 61700 |
| Data Encryption | — | 33900 |
| Data Compression | — | 556000 |
| Physics | — | 2494 |
| Extended Instructions | — | 30900 |
|
Cinebench 2024
|
||
| Multi-Core | 1508 | 2069 |
| Single-Core | 133 | 124 |
|
Blender
|
||
| Render Score | — | 411 |
Tip: ▲ indicates a higher-is-better spec advantage, while ▼ indicates a lower-is-better advantage.
PERFORMANCE CHART COMPARISON OF Intel Core Ultra 9 285 AND Intel Core i9 14900
The charts below visualize how Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and Intel Core i9 14900 stack up in key performance metrics.
Performance Radar Chart
Performance Benchmarks
Release Timeline of Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and Intel Core i9 14900
Intel Core i9 14900 was released 11 months, 9 days earlier than Intel Core Ultra 9 285.
Value For Money Calculator
Prices use available launch or current data. Enter your own prices to see which CPU gives better value.
Intel Core Ultra 9 285
Intel Core i9 14900
Calculating...
Domain Score Summary
Scores are generated by Comparigon's scoring algorithm and are intended as a high-level guide. They may not map 1-to-1 with the individual spec-by-spec comparisons shown in the table.
Our Verdict
In conclusion, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 edges out overall compared to the Intel Core i9 14900. Its strongest advantages are in Single-Core Performance, CPU Architecture, Memory Architecture and Energy Efficiency. They are still fairly close in Multi-Core Performance.
Try to Compare Again One of These CPUs With Another CPU
Pick which CPU to keep, then search for the other CPU to compare.
Disclaimer: Specs, pricing, and benchmarks are sourced from official manufacturer data and verified test results. While we strive for precision, product details and pricing may change. Comparigon may earn an affiliate commission on qualifying purchases.