Core Ultra 9 285K vs Ryzen 9 9900X: Our Thoughts

See full bio

Abde Manaf

At Tech4Gamers, I began as a comparison writer, analyzing GPU and CPU performance. Now, I focus on writing reviews and contributing to the best-ofs section, sharing personal insights after hands-on testing.

See full bio

Pros And Cons

Comparison Table

Architectural Differences

1. Core Count: Intel’s 285K has 24 cores (8 performance and 16 efficiency) and 24 threads, while the 9900X uses 12 cores and 24 threads.
2. Clock Speed: The base clock speed of the performance cores on the 9900X is 4.4GHz, which is higher than the 3.7GHz clocks of the 285K. The boost clocks are 5.6GHz on the Ryzen and 5.5GHz on the Core Ultra.
3. Process Node: The Ryzen uses a 4nm processing node, which is a bit older than the 3nm manufacturing process of the Core Ultra 9 285K.
4. TDP: The TDP of the 990X is 120 watts, which is slightly lower than the 125-watt TDP of the Core Ultra 9 285K.
5. Cache: The 9900X has the advantage when it comes to the cache with a 64-megabyte buffer, whereas the 285K has a 36-megabyte buffer.

Intel has gone through a complete rebrand with their new Core Ultra chips. While this has been happening, AMD has more or less stuck to its roots. Let’s see how both of these approaches differ in the Core Ultra 9 285K vs Ryzen 9 9900X comparison!

Gaming Benchmarks – 1080p

Now that we have talked about the specifications of these two chips, we will take a look at how they perform in games. The specs of the test bench we used with these processors 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 (AMD) – ASRock X870E Taichi Lite
• Mobo (Intel) – MSI MPG Z890 Edge Ti WiFi Review

 Star Wars Jedi: Survivor

• The first game we tested ran with an average framerate of 155 FPS on the Ryzen, which was about 2% lower than the 158 FPS of the Core Ultra 9 285K.
• The minimum framerates were the same on both these processors. They plateaued down to 132 FPS in the hard-to-render scenes.

The Last Of Us Part 1

• The 9900X ran The Last Of Us at an average framerate of 172 FPS, whereas the Core Ultra 9 285K was about 13% faster with a framerate of about 194 FPS.
• The minimum framerates were around 19% higher on the 285K at around 138 FPS, whereas the Ryzen 9 9900X went down to around 116 FPS.

Cyberpunk 2077

• The 9900X made a comeback in our Cyberpunk test, with an average framerate of 158 FPS, which was about 20% faster than the 132 FPS of the Core Ultra 9 285K.
• The 1% lows of the 9900X were about 15% higher than the Core Ultra at about 115 FPS, while Intel’s chip got a minimum framerate of 100 FPS.

Hogwarts Legacy

• AMD’s 9900X took another loss in our test of Hogwarts Legacy with a framerate of 116 FPS, which was about 5% lower than the 122 FPS of the Core Ultra 9 285K.
• The 9900X lost out big time in the lows, with lows of 66 FPS, which was about 30% lower than the 86 FPS of the Core Ultra 9 285K.

Remnant 2

• The 9900X lost out once again with an average framerate of 114 FPS, which was 6% lower than the 122 FPS of the Core Ultra 9 285K.
• The 1% lows were about 9% lower on the Ryzen 9 9900X, with a framerate of 97 FPS, while the 285K hovered closer to lows of 106 FPS.

Homeworld 3

• Ryzen took a big leap forward, with a framerate of 91 FPS, which was about 26% higher than the 72 FPS of the Core Ultra 9 285K.
• The minimum framerates were 83% higher on the Ryzen at about 44 FPS, whereas the 285K got a minimum closer to around 24 FPS.

A Plague Tale: Requiem

• The Ryzen took another win in our test of this game, with an average framerate of 147 FPS, which was about 19% higher than the 123 FPS of the Core Ultra 9 285K.
• The minimums took a large lead on the Ryzen once again at around 109 FPS, which was about 45% higher than the 75 FPS of the Core Ultra 9 285K.

Hitman 3

• Sadly, the Ryzen lost in our last test in Hitman 3, where it got an average framerate of 246 FPS, which was about 10% lower than the 271 FPS of the Core Ultra 9 285K.
• The Ryzen had 1% lows of 214 FPS, which comes out to about 12% lower than the Core Ultra 9 285K’s minimum framerates of 240 FPS.

Productivity Tests

Now that we have gone through the gaming tests, the next thing on the platter is the productivity tests. The test bench we did these productivity tests on is the same one as in the gaming benchmarks, so take a look at that if you are curious.

Cinebench R24

• The single-core performance was higher on the Core Ultra 9 285K at around 150 points, whereas the Ryzen 9 9900X had a performance of 139 points, which creates a delta of around 8%.
• Multicore performance was higher on the Intel chip as well, with a performance of about 2516 points against the 1834 points of the Ryzen 9 9900X. This was a huge 37% win for the Intel.

7-Zip 

• The compression test ran better ran better on the Intel, unsurprisingly. The Core Ultra had a score of 196 points, which was about 13% higher than the 173 points of the Ryzen 9 9900X.
• The decompression test ran with a score of 208 points on the Ryzen, netting it a tiny win over the Core Ultra, which had a score of 206 points.

Photoshop

• The Ryzen knocked the Core Ultra out of the park in Photoshop, where the former had a score about 31% higher than the latter.
• The Ryzen had a score of about 11853 points, which was much higher than the 9025 points of the Core Ultra 9 285K.

Overall Gaming Performance

Average Framerate

The 9900X had a very small 0.5% advantage when it came to the gaming tests, which is something you would not notice at all. Taking a step back, the Ryzen won in some titles whereas the Core Ultra took the lead in others. Carefully read the game-to-game performance to see how both processors perform in the games you want to play.

1% Lows

The minimums were a very frail 0.9% higher on the 285K across the games that we tested. This difference is, once again, too small to notice. The performance behaviors were about the same as the average framerates, with the Core Ultra being better in some games while the Ryzen clapped back in others.

 Productivity Tests

Both processors performed about equally in the productivity section. Yes, the Core Ultra performed better in the synthetic benchmarks, but the performance of the Ryzen in Photoshop made up for it in our testing suite.

Power Consumption

When we measured the power consumption on both these chips, we were surprised to see that the Core Ultra 9 took significantly more power than the Ryzen. The Ryzen took around 23% less power than the Core Ultra 9 285K.

Temperatures

The temperatures were barely different between these chips. We measured that the Ryzen was only about 3% lower in temperatures. This difference is nowhere near a significant amount. The individual temperatures were also well within safe ranges, so temperatures should not factor into this decision.

Price And Availability

The 9900X has been discounted in price since it came out (partially because it is selling really well on sites like Amazon), while the Core Ultra has only risen in price. The price is currently 51% apart, with the Core Ultra being much more expensive. You would be paying about $210 extra with the Core Ultra

Our Recommendation

Core Ultra 9 285K: In our testing with these chips, the Core Ultra seems slightly worse in the areas that matter and better with some productivity tests. The biggest drawback of this chip is its high price. If it wasn’t a whole $200 more expensive than the Ryzen, it would be a competitive processor.

Ryzen 9 9900X: Testing this chip showed us that it is a bit worse than the 285K when it comes to gaming performance, a difference that is certainly unnoticeable. The price, however, has a very noticeable difference. The price is what drives all the purchases behind the Ryzen 9 9900X, even if its performance isn’t staggering compared to the Core Ultra.

For anyone making a computer in 2024, or even in to 2025, we would recommend going with the 9900X over the Core Ultra 9 285K because of the former’s equivalent performance and low price.

Please leave this field empty

Gear Up For Latest News

Get exclusive gaming & tech news before it drops. Sign up today!

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Abde Manaf

[Comparisons Expert]

Abdemanaf is a skilled creative writer who has been honing his craft since 2011. While initially working in different fields, he found a passion for technology and has been exploring the tech world since early 2015. Over the years, he has developed an in-depth knowledge of the latest tech trends and product offerings by various companies.

Abdemanaf’s writing reflects his analytical mindset and ability to think critically. He has a knack for breaking down complex technical information into easily digestible pieces, making his articles engaging and accessible to readers from all backgrounds. In February 2022, he joined Tech4Gamers as a blog and product comparison writer, where he has been able to hone his skills further.

As a writer, Abdemanaf is dedicated to staying up-to-date with the latest technological advancements and trends, enabling him to provide readers with the most relevant and accurate information. He is always eager to learn more and is constantly seeking new challenges to improve his skills.

Get In Touch: manaf@tech4gamers.com