Core Ultra 9 285K Vs Core Ultra 7 265K: Our Analysis

---

Pros And Cons

[table “2403” not found /]

---

---

Comparison Table

[table “2404” not found /]

---

Architectural Differences

1. Core Count: The Core Ultra 9 285K has 24 cores (8 P-cores and 16 E-cores) and 24 threads, whereas the Core Ultra 7 265K has 20 cores (8 P-cores and 12 E-cores) and 20 threads.
2. Clock Speed: The 285 K’s base clock is 3.7GHz, while the 265 K’s is 3.9GHz. The Core Ultra 9’s boost clock is 5.5GHz, whereas the Core Ultra 7’s is 5.4GHz.
3. Cache: The Ultra 9 has a slightly higher L3 cache of 36MB compared to the 30MB L3 cache of the Core Ultra 7 265K.
4. TDP: Both processors have the same PL1 TDP of 125 watts and PL2 TDP of 250 watts.
5. Process Node: As expected, both these chips have the same fabrication process involving a 3nm processing node.

---

It takes a lot for a company to discard its established branding for something completely new. This year, Intel deems its chips far too different from its previous ones to have the same branding. Let’s see how these processors compare in the Core Ultra 9 285K vs Core Ultra 7 265K comparison!

---

Gaming Benchmarks – 1080p

There is no better way to compare these two processors against one another than to see how the improvements from the Core Ultra 7 265K to the Core Ultra 9 285K show forth in gaming. To test these processors, we have devised a test bench, the specs of which are written below:

Test Bench

• OS – Windows 11 
• CPU Cooler – Enermax LiqMaxFlo 360mm
• Graphics Card – GIGABYTE RTX 4090 Gaming OC 24G
• SSD – XPG Gammix S50 Lite
• Power Supply – be quiet! Dark Power Pro 13 1300W
• Mobo – MSI MPG Z890 Edge Ti WiFi Review

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor

• In our testing, there was only a small difference in the performance of these chips. The 285K averaged 158 FPS, while the 265K hovered closer to 146 FPS, marking an 8% difference.
• The Core Ultra 9’s lows were only 3% higher, at around 132 FPS, whereas the lower-tiered chip was inching closer to it, with lows of 128 FPS.

The Last Of Us Part 1

• There was barely a difference in The Last Of Us, with the Core Ultra 9 285K getting an average of 194 FPS, while the Ultra 7 was right at its heels with an average of 193 FPS, a 0.5% difference.
• The lows differed by around 1.5%, with the Core Ultra 9 285K plateauing to 138 FPS in the hard-to-run scenes, whereas the Core Ultra 7 265K hovered closer to 136 FPS.

Cyberpunk 2077

• We didn’t see a huge difference in Cyberpunk either, with the Core Ultra 9 getting an average framerate of 150 FPS, whereas the Core Ultra 7 got an average of 148 FPS, marking a difference of around 1.35%.
• The lows stood apart with a difference of a single frame, with the Core Ultra 9 going down to around 114 FPS in some scenes, whereas the Core Ultra 7 stayed close behind at 113 FPS.

Hogwarts Legacy

• There was a meager difference of around 2.5% in Hogwarts Legacy, with the Core Ultra 9 averaging a framerate of 122 FPS, whereas the Ultra 7 stayed closer to an average of 119 FPS.
• We saw the same 3 frames of difference in this title’s 1% lows, with the 285K closing in on 86 FPS, while the 265K was 3.6% behind, with lows of 83 FPS.

Remnant 2

• Remnant 2 saw an average of 121 FPS on the 285K, an unceremonious 3.4% ahead of the 117 FPS that its little brother could average in our testing.
• The difference dropped to 2.9% in the 1% lows, where the Core Ultra 9 dipped to around 106 FPS, whereas the Core Ultra 7 265K was closer to about 103 FPS.

Homeworld 3

• All the tests have had inconsequential differences, and Homeworld 3 was no different. The 285k averaged 86 FPS, 2.38% higher than the 265 K’s 84 FPS.
• The difference in the 1% lows was also an unremarkable single frame, with the Core Ultra 9 285K hovering around 29 FPS, while the 265K held closer to about 28 FPS.

A Plague Tale: Requiem

• We saw another single frame of difference in A Plague Tale: Requiem, with the Core Ultra 9 hovering around 122 FPS, whereas the Core Ultra 7 held closer to about 121 FPS with its averages.
• The difference grew to about 2.74% in the 1% lows, with the Core Ultra 9 sticking around 75 FPS, while the Core Ultra 7 had 1% lows closer to 73 FPS in our testing with these chips.

Hitman 3

• The two chips had a 5% difference, with the Core Ultra 9 285K hovering around 269 FPS, whereas the Core Ultra 7 had an average closer to 256 FPS in Hitman 3.
• Finally, the 1% lows of the last test of our benchmarks had minimums of around 239 FPS on the Core Ultra 9 285K, which were around 3% higher than the 232 FPS of the Core Ultra 7.

---

Productivity Benchmarks

Now that the gaming benchmarks have been dealt with, it is time to see how these chips perform in productivity tests, both synthetic and akin to what you would use them for in the real world. The test bench used for these tests is the same as the gaming benchmarks.

Cinebench R24

• The Core Ultra 9 285K had a performance worth 150 points in the single-core section of the Cinebench R24 benchmark, while the 265K was 3.45% behind with a score of 145 points.
• The multi-core scores were significantly higher on the Ultra 9, which scored around 2523 points, whereas the Core Ultra 7 265K hovered closer to 2165 points, making a delta of around 16%.

7-Zip

• The compression test ran around 11% better on the Core Ultra 9 285K, with a score of around 203 points, whereas its weaker sibling scored around 182 FPS.
• The decompression test was around 20% faster on the 285K, where the chip scored about 212 points, whereas the 265K scored around 176 points.

Photoshop

• Surprisingly, the Pudget System benchmark ran better on the Core Ultra 7 265K than the Core Ultra 9 285K. The difference was by a small margin, but it was still surprising.
• In our testing, the 285K scored 9026 points, whereas the Core Ultra 7 265K scored around 9246 points, which put it in the lead by around 2.44%.

---

Overall Performance

[table “2400” not found /]

Average Framerate

Our tests showed the Core Ultra 9 285K offers no noticeable gaming performance improvement over the Core Ultra 7 265K at 1080p, with an average framerate difference of just 3.21% across eight games.

1% Lows

The Core Ultra 9 285K’s minimum framerates were just 2.57% higher than the Core Ultra 7 265 K’s, a barely noticeable difference that shrinks at higher resolutions. We struggled to notice a difference between the two processors in this metric.

Productivity 

The 285K excelled in synthetic single-core and multi-core tests, but the 265K outperformed in the Puget Systems benchmark, making this section a draw.

---

Power

[table “2401” not found /]

It is laughable how different the power consumption of these two chips was when considering that their performance was almost identical. The Core Ultra 9 285K took back around 30% more power than its rival, which makes the Core Ultra 7 265K much more power efficient.

Temperature

[table “2402” not found /]

The difference between the average temperature on either chip was similar to our gaming tests. There was only a 1.4% difference in thermals, with the 285K being slightly hotter. Both chips were well within safe temperatures, and thermals should not concern either processor.

---

Price and Value

[table “2399” not found /]

Though the difference in performance between these chips is very small, the price difference is ginormous. As of writing this article, the Core Ultra 9 285K is around $235 more expensive than the Core Ultra 7, which is a difference of around 61%.

---

What We Recommend

Core Ultra 9 285K: After thoroughly testing this processor against its lower-end brother, we think it is not worth the extra price. Gaming performance is not affected by its extra power, and productivity tasks also seem almost unfazed by the benefits of this chip.

Core Ultra 7 265K: We didn’t find this chip too exciting while we were testing it, that is, until we came to the price. It performs excellently for its price range, especially compared to its higher-end counterpart. The lower power consumption is also a cherry on top.

After scrutinizing these processors, we think that the Core Ultra 9 285K is a waste of money for most people. It’s barely better than the 265K in gaming performance; it works with power efficiency and has a much worse price. However, if you need lots of multi-core performance, the 285K might make sense.

---