Core Ultra 5 245K review: not everything we hoped it would be
WePC is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Prices subject to change. Learn more
The new Intel Arrow Lake CPUs are here, and they’re interesting to say the least. Overall gaming performance has taken a huge hit, but the good news is they’re more efficient – way more efficient. The 245K is essentially the 15600K, the “entry-level” CPU of the series. But is it worth the $309 price tag?
With the 245K being the “entry-level” CPU, it offers the fewest cores and the lowest clock speeds of any CPU in the Core Ultra series. It also doesn’t have any hyperthreaded cores, something that’s been a staple of Intel CPUs for over 22 years at this point. The play here is an efficient one, with Intel opting to squash the rapidly growing power demands of each CPU generation. So, how does it hold up against other CPUs? Let’s find out.
- Core configuration: 14 (6+8)
- Threads: 14
- P-Core Speed: 5.2 GHz (boost) 4.6 GHz (base)
- E-Core Speed: 4.2 GHz (boost) 3.6 GHz (base)
- DDR5 support: 6400 MT/s
- TDP / PL1 / PL2 / PL2 (extreme): 125W / 159W / 159W / 159W
The Core Ultra 5 245K is not the CPU to have if you’re looking for generational improvements on gaming performance. Having said that, if you’re looking at a CPU that uses minimal power against the competition then this could be a pretty solid option.
- Very efficient across all workloads
- Easier to cool than most
- Cheaper than AMD flagship
- Much better multi-core performance than 9950X
- Underwhelming gaming performance
- Feels like something is missing
- Too focused on efficiency
Specifications and comparison
The Core Ultra 5, as we mentioned, is the entry-level into the Core Ultra lineup, offering affordability over raw performance. We’re going to be comparing it with the 14600K, to see whether there is a significant generational improvement.
| Component | Core Ultra 5 245K | Core i5 14600K |
|---|---|---|
| Cores | 14 | 14 |
| Threads | 14 | 20 |
| Hybrid architecture | P-core: 6 E-core: 8 | P-core: 8 E-core: 16 |
| Base frequency | P-core: 4.2 GHz E-core: 3.6 GHz | P-core: 3.5 GHz E-core: 2.6 GHz |
| Boost frequency | P-core: 5.2 GHz E-core: 4.6 GHz | P-core: 5.3 GHz E-core: 4 GHz |
| Boost 3.0 | N/A | N/A |
| Turbo clock | up to 5.2 GHz | up to 5.3GHz |
| 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 | 24 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |
| TDP / PL1 / PL2 / PL2 (extreme) | 125W / 159W / 159W / 159W | 125W / 181W / 181W / 181W |
| Process size | 3 nm | 10 nm |
| Socket | LGA 1815 (compatible with Z980) | LGA 1700 (compatible with Z790, B760, Z690, B660, H610) |
We observe quite a few differences between the two entry-level CPUs. The largest is the lack of hyperthreading, which puts the 245K at a six-logical processor disadvantage. This is also coupled with the nm process shrinkage from 10 to 3 nm, an entire 7 nm leap – likely to be the catalyst that allows Intel to achieve such efficiency.
Opting for the 14600K (or any 14th gen) allows you to potentially keep the motherboard you already have, as the Core ultra CPUs require a new LGA 1851 motherboard. That being said, the new Z890 motherboards are breaking OC records with the 285K.
Sticking with the platform, the extra four Gen 5 PCIe lanes should allow greater compatibility with additional PCIe devices without sacrificing GPU performance. GPUs don’t fill the entire bandwidth allowance just yet, but we’ll get there eventually. Staying ahead of the curve is a better idea than having to catch up when the time comes.
Design and Gallery
The 245K hasn’t changed too much physically, bar the 115 extra contact pads on the bottom of the CPU. It’s internally where we see the changes become more apparent. As we mentioned previously, the 245K (and the rest of the Arrow Lake processors) do not possess hyperthreaded E-cores. This implies that the new CPUs may have a problem with keeping up in multi-threaded applications, but they perform surprisingly well in those conditions. Gaming performance is where these CPUs struggle – more on that later.
Intel Core Ultra 5 245K WePC box
Intel Core Ultra 5 245K WePC on back
Intel Core Ultra 5 245K WePC face
Intel Core Ultra 5 245K WePC in mobo
Intel Core Ultra 5 245K WePC scenic
Ditching hyperthreading seems to have upped the efficiency of these CPUs, particularly the 245K, as it consumes the least energy of the three. The entry-level CPU looks like a fine choice for any budding PC builder looking to design a smaller, more portable machine.
Core Ultra 245K Performance
Performance, and I say this with love, isn’t what we expected from Arrow Lake as a whole. The 245K evades the level of expectation we had for the 285K, but it’s still a bit of a disappointment on the gaming front.
Before we get into all of that, we should outline the testing rig we used to put the 245K through its paces.
| Component | WePC test rig |
|---|---|
| CPU | Intel Core Ultra 245K |
| Cooler | Corsair H150i Elite LCD |
| Motherboard | ASUS Maximus Extreme Z890 |
| Memory | Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR5 @6800 MHz |
| GPU | MSI RTX 4070 Ti |
| PSU | ASUS Thor Platinum II 1000W |
| Case | Cooler Master Masterframe |
We spare no expense when it comes to testing gaming hardware. The reason we opt for the 4070 Ti over something like the 4090, is to create a more accurate “average” representation of the performance you could expect from the CPUs that we test. Far fewer people probably have a 4090 than have the 4070 Ti.
Graphs and performance
Below, you’ll see all the gaming and synthetic benchmarks we ran for Intel’s Core Ultra 5 245K, alongside graphs that show relative performance comparisons.
Gaming benchmarks
| Metric | CS2 | Days Gone | Doom Eternal | Horizon FW | Frost punk 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score (FPS) | AVG: 300 99%: 129 | AVG: 189.6 99%: 113.8 | AVG: 457.9 99%: 308.9 | AVG: 187.5 99%: 136.3 | AVG: 82.8 99%: 47 |
| AVG temp (package) °C | 44 | 46 | 48 | 47 | 44 |
| Max temp (package) °C | 47 | 54 | 50 | 53 | 51 |
| Average PPT (W) | 74.7W | 79.8W | 96.3W | 89.6W | 73.5W |
Here are the results of our testing with the 245K – it put up a valiant effort in everything except Frostpunk, which for some reason performed way below average no matter how many times we benchmarked it.
We don’t have any apples-to-apples gaming data on hand of our own just yet, as we are currently revamping our entire testing process, but we can size up the gaming performance with the help of the 7800X3D and the 9950X. We’re not looking to overshadow this CPU, merely offer a comparison to what else is out there right now that we have first-hand data for.
| CPU | CS2 | Days Gone | Doom Eternal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core Ultra 5 245K | AVG: 300 99%: 129 | AVG: 189.6 99%: 113.8 | AVG: 457.9 99%: 308.9 |
| Core Ultra 9 285K | AVG: 313.8 99%: 133.7 | AVG: 236.952 99%: 153.415 | AVG: 499.82 99%: 393.848 |
| Ryzen 9 9950X | AVG: 323.7 99%: 136.43 | AVG: 237.4 99%: 133.32 | AVG: 507.658 99%: 386.563 |
| Ryzen 7 7800X3D | AVG: 348.4 99%: 151.62 | AVG: 258.4 99%: 152.7 | AVG: 526.4 99%: 398.1 |
As you can see, and probably expected against these CPUs, the 245K comes in last place across the board. However, it’s not far behind the 285K in CS2 – scoring a respectable 300 FPS average, compared to 313 on the 285K.
Synthetic performance
We compared the 245K with the Ryzen 5 9600X to get a better understanding of what Intel is doing to combat the performance AMD brings. As it turns out, the 245K is quite capable of outmatching the 9600X in synthetic benchmarks.
| CPU | CPU Z | Cinebench R23 | Geekbench 6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core Ultra 5 245K | Single 796.5 Multi 10,565 | Single 2,043 Multi 22,954 | Single 2,932 Multi 18,240 |
| Ryzen 9 9600X | Single 643 Multi 7,085 | Single 1,665 Multi 17,581 | Single 2,624 Multi 15,066 |
| Ryzen 9 9950X | Single 868.5 Multi 16,787 | Single 2,271 Multi 40,166 | Single 3,389 Multi 20,524 |
| Ryzen 7 7800X3D | Single 668.9 Multi 7,248 | Single 1,720 Multi 17,646 | Single 2,671 Multi 15,051 |
The 245K manages to edge ahead of the 9600X by a fair margin in all of the tests performed. Granted, these tests were done before the 105W TDP patch, but they serve as a nice representation of the state of the market just after launch. AMD’s 9600X scores 17,581 in its highest test, Cinebench, and the 285K rockets in with a score of 22,954. On the single-core front, it also comes fairly close to the 9950X in CPU Z, scoring 796 points against 868 of the 9950X. If you want to know what we think of the 285K, you can check out our 285K review.
All that being said, the performance in games is pretty lackluster but it does somewhat make up for it with efficiency and synthetic performance. If you’re looking for a less costly and more efficient alternative to the 14600K, then this could be the CPU for you. Just don’t expect it to do much in the way of gaming.
Efficiency and temperature
| CPU | Cinebench R32 (multi) | CS2 | Days Gone | Doom Eternal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core Ultra 245K | Score: 22,954 Max temp: 60°C Max PPT: 88.2W | AVG: 300 Max temp: 47°C Max PPT: 74.4W | AVG: 189 Max temp: 54°C Max PPT: 79.9W | AVG: 475.9 Max temp: 50°C Max PPT: 96.2W |
| Core Ultra 285K | Score: 42,399 Max temp: 73°C Max PPT: 160.06W | AVG: 313.8 Max temp: 48°C Max PPT: 48.5W | AVG: 236.952 Max temp: 51°C Max PPT: 61.88W | AVG: 499.82 Max temp: 54°C Max PPT: 108.04W |
| Core Ultra 285K (E-core only) | Score: 25,394 Max temp: 57°C Max PPT: 85.93W | AVG: 146.27 Max temp: 47 Max PPT: 28.4W | AVG: 216.727 Max temp: 45°C Max PPT: 40.38W | AVG: 510.843 Max temp: 49°C Max PPT: 67.71W |
| Ryzen 9 9950X | Score: 40,166 Max temp: 64°C Max PPT: 167.67W | AVG: 323.7 Max temp: 62°C Max PPT: 113.55W | AVG: 237.4 Max temp: 73°C Max PPT: 108.33W | AVG: 507.658 Max temp: 62°C Max PPT: 155.96W |
This is where the 245K shines, Intel has made significant strides to bring down power usage and increase efficiency which (thanks mostly to the ditching of hyperthreading and the manufacturing process decrease to 3nm) seems to have paid off.
Taking a look at the numbers, we can see the 245K actually uses more power when trying to keep up with the likes of the 285K, but it’s still miles ahead of the 9950X in terms of power efficiency and temperature. We think the power usage spikes are attributed to higher and longer periods of boost, likely set up on the lower-end SKUs to help compensate for the lack of performance. It’s looking like the 245K might not be as pound-for-pound efficient as the 285K – but it certainly an impressive uplift over previous generations.
Price
The Core Ultra 5 245K has launched at $309, which is $10 less than the 14600K did back in 2023. Nowadays, you can grab the 14600K for around $250 and expect better gaming performance right out the gate. However, it is beaten by the 245K in both efficiency and synthetic performance. Intel clearly is playing on the fact that CPUs need to improve on the efficiency front, and need to pull back a little with Arrow Lake in order to progress to a more efficient future.
Is the Core Ultra 5 245K worth it?
Simply put, unless it drops drastically in price, and we get confirmation that LGA 1851 is going to last for at least another three years, then no. This CPU may be one of the most efficient that Intel has ever made but it doesn’t offer the gaming performance uplift that we were expecting. We understand that this is a necessary step that Intel needs to take to build a more efficient future, but that doesn’t mean you have to buy into it. Wait a little bit and see what the next generation brings. Or, if you want a gaming CPU now, you can wait till the 7th of November, when the 9800X3D releases – probably.
Final Word
Core Ultra 5 245K
