Intel Core Ultra 9 285 VS Intel Core i9 14900K
We are comparing the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 (Intel) with the Intel Core i9 14900K (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 14900K
Here’s how Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and Intel Core i9 14900K stack up against each other in their most impactful areas.
Reasons to consider the Intel Core Ultra 9 285
-
5% higher E-core turbo frequency (4600 MHz vs 4400 MHz)
-
14% more memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s vs 89.6 GB/s)
-
70% smaller manufacturing process (3 nm vs 10 nm)
-
Includes dedicated NPU acceleration
Reasons to consider the Intel Core i9 14900K
-
33% more CPU threads (32 vs 24)
-
7% higher P-core turbo frequency (6000 MHz vs 5600 MHz)
-
100% more performance-core threads (16 vs 8)
-
28% higher P-core base frequency (3200 MHz vs 2500 MHz)
-
26% higher E-core base frequency (2400 MHz vs 1900 MHz)
-
12% higher Geekbench V6 multi-core score (22629 vs 20165)
SPECIFICATION TABLE COMPARISON OF Intel Core Ultra 9 285 AND Intel Core i9 14900K
Below is the detailed specification table comparing Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and Intel Core i9 14900K.
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 14900K |
|---|---|---|
|
General Information
|
||
| CPU Name: | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 | Intel Core i9 14900K |
| Vendor: | Intel | Intel |
| Release Date: | December 18, 2024 | October 16, 2023 |
| 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 | 125 W |
| Max Boost TDP (PL2): | 182 W | 253 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 | 3200 MHz |
| P-Core Turbo Frequency | 5600 MHz | 6000 MHz |
|
E-Cores
|
||
| E-Cores | 16 | 16 |
| E-Threads | 16 | 16 |
| E-Core Base Frequency | 1900 MHz | 2400 MHz |
| E-Core Turbo Frequency | 4600 MHz | 4400 MHz |
|
NPU
|
||
| NPU |
|
|
| NPU TOPS | 13 TOPS | — |
|
Cache and Bus
|
||
| Multiplier | Locked | Unlocked |
| 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 | 22629 |
| Single-Core | 3134 | 3171 |
| File Compression | 1380 | 1940 |
| Clang Compression | 221 | 195 |
| HTML5 Browser | 407 | 589 |
| PDF Renderer | 502 | 638 |
| Text Processing | 356 | 319 |
| Background Blur | 81 | 72 |
| Photo Processing | 141 | 192 |
| Ray Tracing | 47 | 42 |
|
PassMark CPU
|
||
| Multi-Core | — | 58398 |
| Single-Core | — | 4693 |
| Integer Math | — | 209700 |
| Floating Point | — | 152400 |
| Prime Numbers | — | 230 |
| String Sorting | — | 86800 |
| Data Encryption | — | 46600 |
| Data Compression | — | 787800 |
| Physics | — | 3116 |
| Extended Instructions | — | 44900 |
|
Cinebench 2024
|
||
| Multi-Core | 1508 | 2086 |
| Single-Core | 133 | 129 |
|
Blender
|
||
| Render Score | — | 513 |
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 14900K
The charts below visualize how Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and Intel Core i9 14900K stack up in key performance metrics.
Performance Radar Chart
Performance Benchmarks
Release Timeline of Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and Intel Core i9 14900K
Intel Core i9 14900K was released 1 year, 2 months, 2 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 14900K
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 i9 14900K has a narrow overall lead compared to the Intel Core Ultra 9 285. Its strongest advantages are in Single-Core Performance, Multi-Core Performance and Energy Efficiency. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the better fit if your top priority is CPU Architecture and Memory Architecture.
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.