techspot Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Review

[UltraMega]

Lots to go over in the articles, so instead of quoting anything, I'll just give a brief TLDR:

 

The 285K does well in workstation tasks, but for gaming it's all over the place. In a few titles it performs very well, but it most it performs pretty poorly.

 

I suspect some updates to games or windows could eventually help with this, but so far it looks like there's a lot of mess to sort through. I don't think hardly anyone will be buying these just for gaming in the near future.

 

 

https://www.techspot.com/review/2911-intel-core-ultra-9-285k/

 

 

 

Edited October 24 by UltraMega

[bwalker36]

So perusing the article, this is Intel's version of a chiplet design right?  Basically their Ryzen?

 

I browsed the techspot article, I know understand that it doesn't redefine the world, but seems like a solid product considering the power reduction.  Interested to see what intel squeezes out of this over time.  I'm probably going ryzen for my new years build but who knows, maybe they do something by then. 

Edited October 24 by bwalker36

[Sir Beregond]

Like Zen 1 for AMD, could be the start of something great for Intel, but it's a tough sell in the current market. AM5 is an established platform at this time with Zen 5 X3D on the way, while LGA1851 is gonna be an expensive new platform, and at least from the rumors I heard, not sure the longevity of it following Arrow Lake. At least for gaming, Arrow Lake seems like it won't be a compelling option vs 9800X3D platforms.

 

On the other hand, one thing that seems like a red flag to me is the fact that Intel 7 (12th, 13th, 14th gen) is a 10nm node and they are dropping all the way down to TSMC's N3B (3nm). And yet they can't seem to exactly surpass 14th gen. It's...concerning.

Edited October 24 by Sir Beregond

[UltraMega]

7 minutes ago, Sir Beregond said:

On the other hand, one thing that seems like a red flag to me is the fact that Intel 7 (12th, 13th, 14th gen) is a 10nm node and they are dropping all the way down to TSMC's N3B (3nm). And yet they can't seem to exactly surpass 14th gen. It's...concerning.

This

[Barefooter]

Just finished reading the review at Tom's Hardware here

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Review: Intel Throws a Lateral with Arrow Lake

 

This paragraph in the review sums it up pretty well.

Quote

Intel’s $589 Core Ultra 9 285K brings substantial gains in productivity workloads and drastically reduces power consumption; however, the new Arrow Lake chips struggle to keep up with their prior generation counterparts in gaming, making the chips more of a lateral move for performance enthusiasts.

 

Pretty disappointing on the gaming front!

[UltraMega]

2 minutes ago, Barefooter said:

Just finished reading the review at Tom's Hardware here

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Review: Intel Throws a Lateral with Arrow Lake

 

This paragraph in the review sums it up pretty well.

 

Pretty disappointing on the gaming front!

It does best in workloads, but it's vastly less efficient than AMD in those areas.

[Slaughtahouse]

At face value it’s disappointing but hopefully this is one of the first steps to change course. It’s not all doom and gloom and its clear certain work loads reap benefits.

 

Do we know if the socket (LGA 1851) will go beyond the typical two CPU generations? That’s really why Zen was so successful. AM4 supported 3 generations and 2 mid gen uplifts (2000 series, 5000 X3D) all on one platform.

 

Ignoring any investments in my current system, the question I would ask myself “why would I opt for an Intel platform today when AMD platform and offerings are more flexible (workstation 9950X / gaming 9800 X3D) and will likely last longer?”

 

Hope they improve on this front to keep the market competitive and innovative.

 

[UltraMega]

1 hour ago, Slaughtahouse said:

Do we know if the socket (LGA 1851) will go beyond the typical two CPU generations? That’s really why Zen was so successful. AM4 supported 3 generations and 2 mid gen uplifts (2000 series, 5000 X3D) all on one platform.

 

Highly doubt this socket will be more than 2 gens for obvious reasons.

 

Your logic about "why would I choose Intel" seems to be the same logic I'd expect most consumers to go with.

 

AMD has been beating Intel for a few generations now and I think any hope that Intel was going to turn things around is completely gone at this point. It feels like a shifting point in the sense that; Intel is at a pretty low point in terms of public perception AND their chips are mostly worse than the competition. So at this point I'd expect AMD to gain more traction. If there is any hope that Intel would ever do the same socket for more than 2 gens going forward, it would only be due to pressure form AMD. 

 

I think Intel is now riding on its long term public perception. How long can they do that before the larger market starts taking AMD more seriously? 

Edited October 25 by UltraMega

[Odyn]

Remember when 450w PSUs could power everything? Pepperidge Farms remembers. I didn't read the article in depth but I wonder if this is like the early core2 days where you could just throw +V / multiplier on the lowest end SKUs to easily equal or even surpass the highest end SKUs. I guess time will tell

[Sir Beregond]

I don't think it's a complete disaster per se. Intel is bringing some interesting things to the market with this launch such as CUDIMM compatibility and such. Things like that will certainly keep the enthusiast market that likes to tweak and overclock happy.

 

However that's still a niche market in the grand scheme of things, and I don't think the general gaming market will regard this launch well at all.

[UltraMega]

6 hours ago, Odyn said:

Remember when 450w PSUs could power everything? Pepperidge Farms remembers. I didn't read the article in depth but I wonder if this is like the early core2 days where you could just throw +V / multiplier on the lowest end SKUs to easily equal or even surpass the highest end SKUs. I guess time will tell

That would be nice, but those kind of OC gains ended a long time ago. 

[Slaughtahouse]

3 hours ago, Sir Beregond said:

I don't think it's a complete disaster per se. Intel is bringing some interesting things to the market with this launch such as CUDIMM compatibility and such. Things like that will certainly keep the enthusiast market that likes to tweak and overclock happy.

 

However that's still a niche market in the grand scheme of things, and I don't think the general gaming market will regard this launch well at all.

 

It's not a complete disaster but why be a first adopter on these technologies if they perform by and large similar or worse than competitors that are cheaper, more efficient? The only reason really would be is that you simply have a preference for Intel and you want to buy into a new platform for X reasons. That's likely a really small group. Most users will likely just go to LGA 1700 or AM5 because it's cheaper, more performant, and/or has more long term potential (AM5).

[Sir Beregond]

1 hour ago, Slaughtahouse said:

 

It's not a complete disaster but why be a first adopter on these technologies if they perform by and large similar or worse than competitors that are cheaper, more efficient? The only reason really would be is that you simply have a preference for Intel and you want to buy into a new platform for X reasons. That's likely a really small group. Most users will likely just go to LGA 1700 or AM5 because it's cheaper, more performant, and/or has more long term potential (AM5).

Yep, I don't disagree.

[bwalker36]

I'm intrigued for sure.  I'm definitely going ryzen for my next build, don't think I have used AMD since before q6600 GO stepping was the thing lol.  I think there is a perception thing that is clouding this.  When ryzen came out AMD was not competitive at all so them releasing ryzen was amazing but if I remember correctly it was quite a bit behind the current Intel chips.  Also had all the memory issues. 

 

The fact that intel is, well intel, I think there is some bias that they should release their first chiplet design with a new arch that also blows everything out of the water.  Maybe I'm overstating the impact of their shift from monolithic cores but I feel like this should make us all happy as they dial this new plan in. 

[Odyn]

5 hours ago, Slaughtahouse said:

 

It's not a complete disaster but why be a first adopter on these technologies if they perform by and large similar or worse than competitors that are cheaper, more efficient? The only reason really would be is that you simply have a preference for Intel and you want to buy into a new platform for X reasons. That's likely a really small group. Most users will likely just go to LGA 1700 or AM5 because it's cheaper, more performant, and/or has more long term potential (AM5).

for those that are looking to replace broken/old/aging hw, maybe?

[Slaughtahouse]

28 minutes ago, Odyn said:

for those that are looking to replace broken/old/aging hw, maybe?

Sure but other hardware is very comparable, more efficient, cheaper, or all the above.

 

The good news is that if you’re willing to “invest” in the new platform, you’re still getting a very performant system. Just wouldn’t be my first pick without knowing how the platform will shake out all things considered. Unless budget was of no concern and my workload was predominantly ones that favoured Arrowlake.

 

Guru3Ds highlights these wins very clearly.

 

Review: Core Ultra 9 285K Processor: Blazing Speed, But Energy Efficiency Falls Short (Page 8)

WWW.GURU3D.COM

---

Intel today unleashes its Core Ultra 200 series processors, we start with two reviews, this one will entail the...

[UltraMega]

It's happening:

 

https://www.guru3d.com/story/mindfactory-reports-zero-sales-for-intel-arrow-lake-core-ultra-200s-cpus/

 

 

[Barefooter]

11 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

It's happening:

 

https://www.guru3d.com/story/mindfactory-reports-zero-sales-for-intel-arrow-lake-core-ultra-200s-cpus/

 

 

I saw that posted on Tom's Hardware.  Hard to believe they have not sold even one!

[UltraMega]

33 minutes ago, Barefooter said:

I saw that posted on Tom's Hardware.  Hard to believe they have not sold even one!

The title is misleading. They have sold some literally, but so few that is "practically nothing". 

[Mr. Fox]

I think the lackluster Core Ultra launch is a reflection of the glued together mess. It made AMD suck and took a long time to make it palatable and Intel should expect the same. It's an inferior design concept overall.

I think in this case Intel might have (should have) anticipated the decreased stock turbo clock speeds, poor overclocking and lower core/thread count and removal of hyperthreading would be poorly received by overclocking and performance PC enthusiasts, and the poor availability could be a calculated and deliberate move to avoid having excessive stock sitting on store shelves. Since they have farmed out the chiplet/tiled abortion to TSMC they need to be even more careful that production doesn't outstrip demand and force them to lower prices or sell product at a loss.

 

If there was a monolithic 14th Gen CPU with 16 hyperthreaded P cores (32 thread) or a 15th Gen Z890 option that was equivalent P-cores (32 thread) and no tiled feces I would jump on either one in a heartbeat. Heck, I would even consider a monolithic 15th Gen with 32 E-cores and not even one P-core since the new E-cores overclock better than the crappy new Arrow Lake P-cores do. It is the hybrid/tiled/chiplet/fabric nonsense that sucks the most. Rubbish.

[Mr. Fox]

Just now, UltraMega said:

The title is misleading. They have sold some literally, but so few that is "practically nothing". 

Probably more in line with not having any to sell, especially the 285K flagship CPU.

 

Seems like a trend of late whenever next gen parts hit store shelves. Was an issue with many recent Intel, AMD and NVIDIA product launches. It is usually the flagship or halo SKU that is most affected. I think demand is never as massive as the media plays it to be, but low supply gives the impression of high demand and creates a feeling of success that may be exaggerated and more perception than reality. It also foster scalping and price gouging. It does seem like supply is often an issue when TSMC is involved as well. Supply of low- and mid-range components (where poor silicon quality is less of a factor) is always better because they know the sheeple like cheap and they produce more of the cheap stuff for the zombie horde.

[Sir Beregond]

24 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

I think the lackluster Core Ultra launch is a reflection of the glued together mess. It made AMD suck and took a long time to make it palatable and Intel should expect the same. It's an inferior design concept overall.

I think in this case Intel might have (should have) anticipated the decreased stock turbo clock speeds, poor overclocking and lower core/thread count and removal of hyperthreading would be poorly received by overclocking and performance PC enthusiasts, and the poor availability could be a calculated and deliberate move to avoid having excessive stock sitting on store shelves. Since they have farmed out the chiplet/tiled abortion to TSMC they need to be even more careful that production doesn't outstrip demand and force them to lower prices or sell product at a loss.

 

If there was a monolithic 14th Gen CPU with 16 hyperthreaded P cores (32 thread) or a 15th Gen Z890 option that was equivalent P-cores (32 thread) and no tiled feces I would jump on either one in a heartbeat. Heck, I would even consider a monolithic 15th Gen with 32 E-cores and not even one P-core since the new E-cores overclock better than the crappy new Arrow Lake P-cores do. It is the hybrid/tiled/chiplet/fabric nonsense that sucks the most. Rubbish.

From a purely enthusiast perspective, I absolutely agree that chiplet design is fundamentally "worse". They absolutely introduce latency penalties over what a monolithic design would have. Much like having to access DRAM is a bottleneck, so to is having to communicate over an interconnect to other parts of the CPU.

 

That said...it makes total sense from a price/performance standpoint and as a way to both simplify manufacturing, and overall lower cost. In many ways its what allowed AMD to heavily price compete Intel in the Zen 2 era, and Intel probably saw that advantage as well vs having what...several different monolithic die designs to contend with every generation. So from that perspective...I kind of get it.

 

Secondarily, my AMD system is fine. It works, it's performant for what I use it for, etc. I would hardly say it "sucks". Now...from an overclocking / enthusiast wanting to play with it perspective? Yeah...I have a 13900KS on the test bench for a reason, when I get around to it .

 

Whether us as a niche group which is not the market that is propping up companies like Intel and AMD like it or not, chiplets are here to stay. My only hope is that Intel can find a way to be competitive again because the last thing we need is a monopoly in the market.

[UltraMega]

41 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

I think the lackluster Core Ultra launch is a reflection of the glued together mess. It made AMD suck and took a long time to make it palatable and Intel should expect the same. It's an inferior design concept overall.

I think in this case Intel might have (should have) anticipated the decreased stock turbo clock speeds, poor overclocking and lower core/thread count and removal of hyperthreading would be poorly received by overclocking and performance PC enthusiasts, and the poor availability could be a calculated and deliberate move to avoid having excessive stock sitting on store shelves. Since they have farmed out the chiplet/tiled abortion to TSMC they need to be even more careful that production doesn't outstrip demand and force them to lower prices or sell product at a loss.

 

If there was a monolithic 14th Gen CPU with 16 hyperthreaded P cores (32 thread) or a 15th Gen Z890 option that was equivalent P-cores (32 thread) and no tiled feces I would jump on either one in a heartbeat. Heck, I would even consider a monolithic 15th Gen with 32 E-cores and not even one P-core since the new E-cores overclock better than the crappy new Arrow Lake P-cores do. It is the hybrid/tiled/chiplet/fabric nonsense that sucks the most. Rubbish.

All chip makers are moving to tiles/chiplets. It's not because they want to, it's because it's literally a requirement.

 

The laws of physics do not allow for monolithic chips to work at a certain point, and we are at that point now. AMD is ahead because they embraced this absolutely necessary step forward sooner than Intel did. 

 

Although Intel does already have tiled chips in the server market, so this isn't really a totally new thing for them.

38 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

Probably more in line with not having any to sell, especially the 285K flagship CPU.

 

Seems like a trend of late whenever next gen parts hit store shelves. Was an issue with many recent Intel, AMD and NVIDIA product launches. It is usually the flagship or halo SKU that is most affected. I think demand is never as massive as the media plays it to be, but low supply gives the impression of high demand and creates a feeling of success that may be exaggerated and more perception than reality. It also foster scalping and price gouging. It does seem like supply is often an issue when TSMC is involved as well. Supply of low- and mid-range components (where poor silicon quality is less of a factor) is always better because they know the sheeple like cheap and they produce more of the cheap stuff for the zombie horde.

According to the article, this has nothing to do with low supply. Only low demand. 

Edited October 31 by UltraMega

[Mr. Fox]

2 hours ago, Sir Beregond said:

From a purely enthusiast perspective, I absolutely agree that chiplet design is fundamentally "worse". They absolutely introduce latency penalties over what a monolithic design would have. Much like having to access DRAM is a bottleneck, so to is having to communicate over an interconnect to other parts of the CPU.

 

That said...it makes total sense from a price/performance standpoint and as a way to both simplify manufacturing, and overall lower cost. In many ways its what allowed AMD to heavily price compete Intel in the Zen 2 era, and Intel probably saw that advantage as well vs having what...several different monolithic die designs to contend with every generation. So from that perspective...I kind of get it.

 

Secondarily, my AMD system is fine. It works, it's performant for what I use it for, etc. I would hardly say it "sucks". Now...from an overclocking / enthusiast wanting to play with it perspective? Yeah...I have a 13900KS on the test bench for a reason, when I get around to it .

 

Whether us as a niche group which is not the market that is propping up companies like Intel and AMD like it or not, chiplets are here to stay. My only hope is that Intel can find a way to be competitive again because the last thing we need is a monopoly in the market.

 

2 hours ago, UltraMega said:

All chip makers are moving to tiles/chiplets. It's not because they want to, it's because it's literally a requirement.

 

The laws of physics do not allow for monolithic chips to work at a certain point, and we are at that point now. AMD is ahead because they embraced this absolutely necessary step forward sooner than Intel did. 

 

Although Intel does already have tiled chips in the server market, so this isn't really a totally new thing for them.

We agree on most of this. I probably dislike it the most just because I am an old school overclocker that doesn't give a hoot about "efficiency" or reducing power consumption, and while I enjoy gaming now and then it's not a primary concern for me. Had the new Core Ultra line not had issues with gaming performance being less than 13th and 14th Gen i9 CPUs there would likely be no controversy or complaining. It seems to mostly revolve around gaming performance being less than other factors. And, it's not BAD performance per se; it's just not better by much, or slightly less performant, depending on the game title. Lots of media-fueled drama and melodrama going on as it relates to gaming. So, to me that is just as silly or niche as my unhappiness about how this tiled crap screws up overclocking. I'm just part of a smaller niche than gamers. It looks like Core Ultra processors actually bring more to the table for productivity than anything else does and I really like a lot of the feature-rich aspects with Z890.

 

What irks me the most about it is the elimination of hyperthreading, reduction in thread count and hybrid cocktail of P- and E-cores. They need to do one or the other. Either give me more P-cores that are hyperthreaded and ditch the E-cores, or ditch the P-cores and give me a ton of E-cores to make up the loss in thread count. I don't care what kind of core it is as long as it performs well and overclocks nicely. It would be better to do one or the other.

 

Most of the issues with the gaming performance are Windows issues, not actual hardware issues. As Wendell noted, on Linux there are fewer issues with Core Ultra performance, even with gaming because Linux doesn't have the thread scheduler issues as much as Windows 11 does. Linux just grabs cores and uses them, as many as it can, rather than trying to "manage" them or maintain lower power consumption.  And, I'd be lying if I said I was happy with the stupid NPU and AI-centric nonsense. I think most of us have already had a gut full of that stupidity. But, Micro$lop, Google and NVIDIA are hell-bent on pushing it and making it a thing whether the rest of the world agrees with it or not. I'd love to see the efforts on that front stall and ultimately fail. Everything is getting messy because of it. I can't even use my Google Suite products at work without AI nonsense being a constant source of inconvenience, unnecessary change and general disruption to workflow.

  

2 hours ago, UltraMega said:

According to the article, this has nothing to do with low supply. Only low demand. 

This is probably accurate with respect to the Core Ultra line as a whole, but I don't see any market having 285K availability. If the extremely limited and nearly non-existent supply of 285K processors are only listed for purchase at inflated scalper prices (the only ones I see are few and far between for asinine prices) it makes perfect sense that nobody is buying them. They shouldn't buy them and would be silly to do so.

I could see there being no interest in the lesser CPUs. If someone owns a mid- or low-range CPU from 13th or 14th Gen there is no reason I can think of that they should want to spend money on something newer. It would yield little benefit to anyone if the pursuit is gaming. Only the 285K really matters and it's not available for the most part. Most people in most places can't buy it even if they wanted it because nobody has any stock. A month ago the media mantra was the same, except nobody wanted Zen 5. This is becoming a pattern with the media. 

 

Edited October 31 by Mr. Fox

[UltraMega]

1 hour ago, Mr. Fox said:

 

We agree on most of this. I probably dislike it the most just because I am an old school overclocker that doesn't give a hoot about "efficiency" or reducing power consumption, and while I enjoy gaming now and then it's not a primary concern for me. Had the new Core Ultra line not had issues with gaming performance being less than 13th and 14th Gen i9 CPUs there would likely be no controversy or complaining. It seems to mostly revolve around gaming performance being less than other factors. And, it's not BAD performance per se; it's just not better by much, or slightly less performant, depending on the game title. Lots of media-fueled drama and melodrama going on as it relates to gaming. So, to me that is just as silly or niche as my unhappiness about how this tiled crap screws up overclocking. I'm just part of a smaller niche than gamers. It looks like Core Ultra processors actually bring more to the table for productivity than anything else does and I really like a lot of the feature-rich aspects with Z890.

 

What irks me the most about it is the elimination of hyperthreading, reduction in thread count and hybrid cocktail of P- and E-cores. They need to do one or the other. Either give me more P-cores that are hyperthreaded and ditch the E-cores, or ditch the P-cores and give me a ton of E-cores to make up the loss in thread count. I don't care what kind of core it is as long as it performs well and overclocks nicely. It would be better to do one or the other.

 

Most of the issues with the gaming performance are Windows issues, not actual hardware issues. As Wendell noted, on Linux there are fewer issues with Core Ultra performance, even with gaming because Linux doesn't have the thread scheduler issues as much as Windows 11 does. Linux just grabs cores and uses them, as many as it can, rather than trying to "manage" them or maintain lower power consumption.  And, I'd be lying if I said I was happy with the stupid NPU and AI-centric nonsense. I think most of us have already had a gut full of that stupidity. But, Micro$lop, Google and NVIDIA are hell-bent on pushing it and making it a thing whether the rest of the world agrees with it or not. I'd love to see the efforts on that front stall and ultimately fail. Everything is getting messy because of it. I can't even use my Google Suite products at work without AI nonsense being a constant source of inconvenience, unnecessary change and general disruption to workflow.

  

This is probably accurate with respect to the Core Ultra line as a whole, but I don't see any market having 285K availability. If the extremely limited and nearly non-existent supply of 285K processors are only listed for purchase at inflated scalper prices (the only ones I see are few and far between for asinine prices) it makes perfect sense that nobody is buying them. They shouldn't buy them and would be silly to do so.

I could see there being no interest in the lesser CPUs. If someone owns a mid- or low-range CPU from 13th or 14th Gen there is no reason I can think of that they should want to spend money on something newer. It would yield little benefit to anyone if the pursuit is gaming. Only the 285K really matters and it's not available for the most part. Most people in most places can't buy it even if they wanted it because nobody has any stock. A month ago the media mantra was the same, except nobody wanted Zen 5. This is becoming a pattern with the media. 

 

 

For reasons I don't fully remember off the top of my head, nor do I really fully understand, there are limits to how large a single die can be on any given node. The only way around certain limitations is to do chiplets. AMD does homogenous chiplets, Intel is doing heterogenous chiplets. I think both are reasonable approaches, but Intels approach is surely not going to play as nicely with certain software. 

 

It makes sense to me that E cores are essentially the replacement for hyper-threading and just like some apps work better with hyper threading off, some apps may work better with E cores off. I do agree that it would be nice to see one or two P core only chips from intel, with or without HT.

 

as for the AI stuff, I do think it's actually really important for the hardware industry overall. Regardless of how any of us feel about stuff like chatGPT or AI, the capabilities an NPU brings to the table across the board are potentially pretty huge, and normalizing that across hardware platforms is a good thing in general so that the software advantages can then follow as we figure out more and more ways to use NPUs effectively. It's definitely not a fad or a trend that is going to go away. Even if "AI" goes through some ups and downs in terms of how receptive people are to it, NPUs are only going to get better and more prevalent simply because there are already a lot of common tasks they can do better than a CPU or GPU.

 

The hardware is still pretty early on that front in some areas, and I think Intel ought to have not even bothered with this gen. The NPU they tacked onto these CPUs is so weak, they might as well have skipped it. It's not even a tenth of what AMD has on their MX300 CPUs. AMD meets the windows requirement NPUs, Intel doesn't even come close. 

 

You are probably right that there is a supply shortage given the CPU just launched. I think it's still true that demand is low, supply is just also low at the moment. 

 

 

Personally, I find I get better answers/information from CoPilot vs doing a search in Google/Bing for the same info. You just have to keep in mind AI can be wrong, just like anything else online can be wrong. You still have to verify the info, but the process is ten times faster (and without any ads) than trying to sort through a bunch of different search results yourself until you find everything you're looking for, like so sort of primitive caveman!