Back
Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs. Intel Core i9 14900K
Dec 15, 2024
45 Game Benchmark
A few weeks ago, we compared Intel's new Core Ultra 9 285K against AMD's Ryzen 7 9800X3D in 45 games to see how the two compared across a massive range of titles. The end result was a one-sided defeat, with the 9800X3D delivering 24% more performance on average. This is not ideal for Intel and certainly not a great outcome for those hoping to buy one of their new Arrow Lake CPUs for gaming.
From that comparison, it was clear that spending around $630 on the Ultra 9 285K for gaming is a bad idea, at least for now. Since then, we've also compared the 9800X3D with the Core i9-14900K in 45 games. While the i9 put up a stronger fight, the Zen 5-based 3D V-Cache part was still, on average, 18% faster.
But all this testing got us wondering: how do the 285K and 14900K compare across such a large selection of games?
Although we've already established that this comparison technically isn't relevant (as gamers shouldn't be looking at either a Core i9 or Core Ultra 9 processor), we're more interested in just seeing how they compare.
There are two main things we want to discover here. First, does the 6% margin favoring the 14900K over the 285K, seen in our day-one review, translate to bigger benchmarks with 45 games? Second, we'd like to establish baseline gaming performance for the 285K across a broad range of games, which can be used to track the progress of any updates.
11Shares
0Comments
10Favorites
14Likes
No content at this moment.