Intel Core Ultra 285K vs 14900K: which is best for gaming?

Which of Intel's flagships is best?

Table of Contents Table of Contents

Intel’s Core Ultra 9 285K has just been released into the wild, marking the first set of non-hyperthreaded Intel CPUs in over 22 years. A bold choice, but will it hold up against the previous generation of Intel CPUs? We pit them head to head to find out which is better.

The Core Ultra 9 285K is an 8 P-core 16 E-core CPU, totaling 24 threads. Despite the lack of threads, it does perform fairly well considering the amount of power it consumes. If you care deeply about power efficiency, this could be the CPU for you. But if you want raw gaming performance, the 14900K is still the one to beat.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

Pros

Very efficient across all workloads

Easier to cool than most

Cheaper than AMD flagship

Much better multi-core performance than 9950X

Cons

Underwhelming gaming performance

Feels like something is missing

Too focused on efficiency

Shop on Amazon

CHECK PRICE

Intel Core i9-14900K

Pros

Efficient performance gains over the last generation

Higher DDR5 XMP speeds beyond 8000MT/s

Overclocking potential is high

Intel Application Optimization is impressive

Cons

Expensive, of course

Has issues with ASUS MCE tech at present

Shop on Amazon

CHECK PRICE

CPU Specification Comparison

It’s important to analyze the specifications of each CPU, so we know what we’re comparing. This helps us better understand why one CPU did better and how.

Component	Core Ultra 285K	Core i9 14900K
Cores	24	24
Threads	24	32
Hybrid architecture	P-core: 8 E-core: 16	P-core: 8 E-core: 16
Base frequency	P-core: 3.7 GHz E-core: 3.2 GHz	P-core: 3.2 GHz E-core: 2.4 GHz
Boost frequency	P-core: 5.5 GHz E-core: 4.6 GHz	P-core: 5.6 GHz E-core: 4.4 GHz
Memory speed	6400 MT/s	5600 MT/s
PCI Express lanes	20 (Gen 5)	16 (Gen 5)
L2 cache	3 MB (per core)	2 MB (per core)
L3 cache	36 MB (shared)	36 MB (shared)
TDP / PL1 / PL2 / PL2 (extreme)	125W / 250W / 250W / 295W	125W / 253W / 253W / Unlimited
Process size	3 nm	10 nm
Socket	LGA 1815 (compatible with Z980)	LGA 1700 (compatible with Z790, B760, Z690, B660, H610)

The greatest disparity between these two CPUs is the size of the manufacturing process and the inclusion of hyperthreaded cores. Specifications seem to indicate that the 285K will wipe the floor with the older 14900K, given that AMD has shown us just what it can do with a 1 nm decrease in the manufacturing process – and Intel went ahead and shaved 7 nm off its transistors.

The 14900K has an edge in terms of raw computing power as it has more logical processors – eight more to be precise. no matter how small your transistors are, that’s hard to compete with. Everything else remains similar and reflects similar generational improvements but in the wrong direction. The 14900K possesses faster base speeds and only slightly faster boost speeds. Likely to save on power.

CPU benchmark performance

Before we start with the benchmarks, it’s important to outline the specifications of our benchmarking rig. We always aim to keep things as fair as possible and try to use comparable components, even intergenerationally.

Component	Name
CPU	Intel: Intel Core Ultra 285K / Core i9-14900K
Cooler	Corsair H150i Elite LCD
Motherboard	Intel: ASUS Maximus Hero Z890 / ASUS ROG Maximus Hero Z790
Memory	Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR5 @6800 MHz
GPU	MSI RTX 4070 Ti
PSU	ASUS Thor Platinum II 1000W
Case	Cooler Master Masterframe

There’s not a huge difference in tech when comparing the 285K and the 14900K, even though the socket has changed, they’re both on the DDR5 memory standard, so we can use the same RAM. And they accept the same GPU and PSU format.

Gaming and synthetic performance

285k vs 14900K average fps

285K vs 14900K power consumption

285K vs 14900K multi core

285K vs 14900K single core

Previous

Next

1 of 4

Previous

Next

On paper, the battle between Intel’s 285K vs 14900K was relatively close – certainly from a multi-core, single-core, and gaming perspective. However, as we’ll touch upon in more detail shortly, the main generational uplift seems to be in the efficiency category – where the 285K runs at nearly half the power requirements of the 14900K.

Before we dive into that though, let’s take a closer look at the gaming benchmarks. When looking at the side-by-side comparisons of the sample games we tested, there was little difference between the new flagship 285K and the 14900K. In fact, most of the games saw the 285K offer lower average frames per second, especially when comparing titles such as CS2 and Days Gone. Overall, the 14900K was the clear winner here – which certainly feels like a step backwards for the brand’s new flagship CPU.

Moving onto synthetic-based tasks, there are few differences to take away. The Core Ultra 9 does perform to a higher level in both single core and multi-core workloads, highlighted in our tests of CPU Z Multi, Cinebench R23 Multi, and Geekbench Multi. Sadly, the generational uplift is in the low single digits, meaning there isn’t a great deal of performance to be gained from upgrading from the 14900K to the 285K.

Efficiency, however, is where we have a clear winner. As you can see from both the synthetic average power consumption chart and the gaming average power consumption chart, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is a far more efficient chip. In fact, during the gaming portion of our tests, the 285K ran at almost half the power consumption of the 14900K – which is a pretty impressive feat when all things are considered. That said, while this is great for power-conscious individuals, I’m not 100% sure who’s going to be getting overly excited over better efficiency. It’s certainly not enough to make me want to run out and upgrade my chip for.

Are there any notable platform differences?

There aren’t too many platform differences between LGA 1851 and LGA 1700, other than the socket, of course. If you ask us, LGA 1700 holds the advantage of being more affordable and equipped with (largely) the same features. High-end LGA 1851 motherboards feature PCIe Gen 5 on both the GPU and storage connectors, have more PCIe lanes (20 compared to 16), and offer USB 4 and Wifi 7 as standard.

If none of these features appeal to you, then you can probably skip the 285K and opt for the 14900K, as it performs much better in gaming workloads. However, if you crave the latest multi-core performance prowess, and want to do so with incredible efficiency, you have to get a motherboard on the LGA 1851 platform – as it’s the only one that the 285K supports.

Should you buy the 285K?

If you want the absolute best gaming rig that money can buy, wait for the 9800X3D. If the 5800X3D has taught us anything, it’s that cache is everything when it comes to efficient gaming. The 7800X3D also pushed past the 285K when it came to gaming but fell very short when it came to workstation tasks and synthetic performance.

Ultimately, you’ve got to go back quite a few generations to find a CPU that offers enough of a performance deficit in both synthetics/gaming and power efficiency to make you want to run out and upgrade this thing. Sadly, as we covered in a recent feature, it feels like Intel has handed AMD the keys to an entire generation of consumers – especially when you factor in the soon-to-be-released 9000 X3D models.

Final word

There you have it, our comprehensive roundup of the main performance differences when pitting the new Intel Core Ultra 9 285K against its predecessor, the Intel i9 14900K. Ultimately, the battle was pretty close, and unfortunately for Intel, there is really no reason to go out and upgrade to the 285K if you’re already running the 14900K.

That being said, if you currently own an Intel chip that is a few generations old, then you might be wondering which is best, the 285K or the 14900K. Overall, the CPUs were relatively closely matched, with few differences found in the main performance benchmarks we ran. That being said, there is a clear winner when it comes to efficiency – and that’s the Core Ultra 285K. Intel have done a great job of improving the efficiency of this chip over the 14th Gen flagship – so much so that, in some scenarios, the 285K draws almost half the power of the 14900K. Remember though, there are several caveats when opting for the 285K, with the biggest being its new chipset – which means a brand new motherboard. If you’re happy to do a full PC upgrade, and efficiency is the main focus, then Core Ultra 9 is fine choice. However, if you’re looking to save a few bucks and want to squeeze every last drop of performance out of the CPU – in both gaming and heavy workloads – then the 14900K is probably still your best bet.