Home > CPU Comparison > Core Ultra 9 285K or Core i9 14900KS: what's better?

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs i9 14900KS

91 out of 100
Intel Core Ultra 9 285K
VS
92 out of 100
Intel Core i9 14900KS
Intel Core Ultra 9 285K
Intel Core i9 14900KS

We compared two 24-core desktop CPUs: the 3.7 GHz Intel Core Ultra 9 285K against the 3.2 GHz i9 14900KS. On this page, you'll find out which processor has better performance in benchmarks, games and other useful information.

  1. Review
  2. Differences
  3. Performance
  4. Specs
  5. Comments (8)

Review

General overview and comparison of the processors
Single-Core Performance
Performance in single-threaded apps and benchmarks
Multi-Core Performance
Measure performance when all cores are involved
Power Efficiency
The efficiency score of power consumption
Integrated Graphics
iGPU capabilities for gaming and 3D-intensive tasks
The "iGPU" and "Power Efficiency" have a minor impact on the NanoReview Score for desktop CPU.
NanoReview Final Score
Choose your main usage scenario to recalculate the Final Score and see which CPU suits your needs.
๐Ÿ”Œ Usage Scenario:

Value for money (Beta)

Global average CPU prices are used by default! For better accuracy, enter your current prices and click โ€œCalculate".
Currency
VS
58.3
(Average)
Value Index
47.0
(Average)

Key Differences

What are the key differences between 14900KS and 285K
Advantages of Intel Core Ultra 9 285K
  • More modern manufacturing process โ€“ 3 versus 10 nanometers
  • More powerful Intel Arc iGPU (4-Cores) integrated graphics: 2 vs 0.8 TFLOPS
  • Newer - released 7 months later
  • Around 12.8 GB/s (14%) higher theoretical memory bandwidth
Advantages of Intel Core i9 14900KS
  • 13% higher Turbo Boost frequency (6.2 GHz vs 5.5 GHz)

Test in Benchmarks

Comparing the performance of CPUs across various tasks
CPU:
Core Ultra 9 285K
vs
Core i9 14900KS

Cinebench

Reputable cross-platform benchmark for high-performance processors
Cinebench 2024 (Single)
Cinebench 2024 (Multi)
Cinebench Scores (11th and 7th place)
Submit your benchmark results

GeekBench v6

The new version of this benchmark emulates common operations often used in real-world apps
Geekbench 6 (Single-Core)
Geekbench 6 (Multi-Core)
File compression 1560 MB/sec 1870 MB/sec
Clang compilation 242.2 Klines/sec 228 Klines/sec
HTML 5 Browser 479.5 pages/sec 623.6 pages/sec
PDF Renderer 622.1 Mpixels/sec 636.5 Mpixels/sec
Text processing 371.2 pages/sec 333.5 pages/sec
Background blur 95.4 images/sec 92.3 images/sec
Photo processing 164.2 images/sec 199.4 images/sec
Ray tracing 52.3 Mpixels/sec 51.6 Mpixels/sec
Sources: GeekBench [1], [2] โ€“ 142 samples

PassMark

Synthetic test that focuses on raw computational performance for low-level functions
Passmark CPU (Single-Core)
Passmark CPU (Multi-Core)
Integer math 172.3 GOps/sec 212.4 GOps/sec
Floating point math 224.2 GOps/sec 153.9 GOps/sec
Find prime numbers 542M Primes/sec 244M Primes/sec
Random string sorting 94.9M Strings/sec 89.7M Strings/sec
Data encryption 57.7 GBytes/sec 47.7 GBytes/sec
Data compression 789.7 MBytes/sec 802.8 MBytes/sec
Physics 3933 Frames/sec 3383 Frames/sec
Extended instructions 62.3B Matrices/sec 45.5B Matrices/sec
Sources: PassMark [3], [4] โ€“ 8455 & 1581 samples

Blender

3D rendering test that measures CPU performance in 3D modeling tasks (uses all cores)
Blender CPU

Performance Per Watt

Shows the score you get per each watt of PL1 TDP
Cinebench 2024 / Watt 18.1 PPW 16.3 PPW
Geekbench 6 Multi / Watt 184.8 PPW 160.1 PPW
Passmark CPU Mark / Watt 537.8 PPW 399.9 PPW
Blender / Watt 4.44 PPW 3.4 PPW
These are rough calculations, as most CPUs surpass PL1 TDP wattage even in multicore workloads.

Recent User Tests

The latest benchmark tests that have been submitted by users
Intel Core Ultra 9 285K
DateBenchmarkResult
๐Ÿ“˜ 2026-06-17 (Olafur Torfi)Cinebench 2024142 / 2242
๐Ÿ“˜ 2026-02-01 (aDamatGeek)Cinebench 2024142 / 2383
๐Ÿ“˜ 2026-01-29 (GeneralJeep)Geekbench 6 CPU3134 / 21707
๐Ÿ“˜ 2025-12-31 (Szymon919191)Cinebench 2024141 / 2261
๐Ÿ“˜ 2025-12-26 (Bill)Geekbench 6 CPU3207 / 22197
Add View all (14)
Intel Core i9 14900KS
DateBenchmarkResult
๐Ÿ“˜ 2025-06-09 (AJ)Cinebench 2024129 / 1610
๐Ÿ“˜ 2025-05-25 (Martin)Cinebench 2024144 / 2443
๐Ÿ“˜ 2025-05-24 (Martin)Cinebench 2024144 / 2443
๐Ÿ“˜ 2025-05-24 (Martin)Geekbench 6 CPU3375 / 24012
๐Ÿ“˜ 2025-05-21 (Kaksh)Cinebench 2024124 / 1977
Add View all (5)

Specifications

Full technical specification of Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and i9 14900KS

General

Vendor Intel Intel
Released October 11, 2024 March 15, 2024
Type Desktop Desktop
Instruction Set x86-64 x86-64
Codename Arrow Lake Raptor Lake Refresh
Model number 285K i9-14900KS
Integrated GPU Arc iGPU (4-Cores) UHD Graphics 770
Rival Equivalent - AMD Ryzen 9 9950X - AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D
Intel CPU rating (3rd and 2nd place)

CPU

Performance Cores
P-Cores 8 8
P-Threads 8 16
Base Frequency (P) 3.7 GHz 3.2 GHz
Turbo Boost Frequency (P) 5.5 GHz 6.2 GHz
Efficient Cores
E-Cores 16 16
E-Threads 16 16
Base Frequency (E) 3.2 GHz 2.4 GHz
Turbo Boost Frequency (E) 4.6 GHz 4.5 GHz
Total
Total Cores 24 24
Total Threads 24 32
Bus Frequency 100 MHz 100 MHz
Multiplier 37x 32x
L1 Cache 192K (per core) 80K (per core)
L2 Cache 3MB (per core) 2MB (per core)
L3 Cache 36MB (shared) 36MB (shared)
Unlocked Multiplier Yes Yes

Package

Fabrication Process 3 nm 10 nm
TDP (PL1) 125 W 150 W
Max. Boost TDP (PL2) 250 W 253 W
Socket FCLGA-1851 LGA-1700
Peak Temperature 105ยฐC 100ยฐC
Desktop CPU ranking (8th and 7th place)

iGPU

Integrated Graphics Intel Arc iGPU (4-Cores) Intel UHD Graphics 770
GPU Base Clock 300 MHz 300 MHz
GPU Boost Clock 2000 MHz 1650 MHz
Shading Units 512 256
TMUs 32 16
ROPs 16 8
Execution Units 64 32
TGP 14 W 15 W
iGPU FLOPS
Core Ultra 9 285K +150%
2 TFLOPS
Core i9 14900KS
0.8 TFLOPS
More info: UHD Graphics 770 compared to Arc iGPU (4-Cores)

Memory Support

Memory Types - DDR5-6400 - DDR5-5600
- DDR4-3200
Max. Memory Size 192 GB 192 GB
Memory Channels 2 2
Max. Memory Bandwidth 102.4 GB/s 89.6 GB/s
ECC Support Yes Yes

Misc

Official Site Intel Core Ultra 9 285K official page Intel Core i9 14900KS official page
PCI Express Version 5.0 5.0
PCI Express Lanes 24 20

Cast your vote

Choose between two processors
173 (59.5%)
118 (40.5%)
Total votes: 291

Competitors

1. Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs Intel Core i7 14700K
2. Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs Intel Core i9 14900K (8)
3. Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs AMD Ryzen 9 9900X (1)
4. Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs AMD Ryzen 9 9950X (35)
5. Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265K (2)
6. Intel Core i9 14900KS vs Apple M4 (10-Core)
7. Intel Core i9 14900KS vs AMD Ryzen 9 9950X (11)
8. Intel Core i9 14900KS vs Intel Core i9 14900K (3)
9. Intel Core i9 14900KS vs AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (4)
10. Intel Core i9 14900KS vs Intel Core i9 13900KS (1)
Compare other CPUs (460+)

Comments

So which CPU will you choose: Intel Core i9 14900KS or Ultra 9 285K?
๐ŸŒ Register your profile and become part of NanoReview community!
Avatar
roei January 15, 2026 at 08:54 AM
285k is much better at power effiency in real world. make much less heat and do almost the same performance as 14900ks.
0 Reply
Avatar
Truth November 15, 2024 at 03:50 AM
Tell me what is the benefit of 3nm technology here ? a 10nm processor in PC is as good as a 3nm processor . An if someone say it's about igpu power , No one will use a top of the line dekstop processor without a dedicated graphics card .
+16 Reply
Avatar
Enthusiast November 24, 2024 at 06:16 PM
You are right , we actually don't know about these , what is really happening inside the cpu . Intel is maintained the top position in desktop CPU range with 14th gen 10nm processor . And their 15th gen processor is not that much improvement with 3nm fabrication .
+3 Reply
Avatar
Adiyan November 28, 2024 at 06:52 PM
Actually, 3nm will help a lot in power efficiency
+4 Reply
Avatar
Truth November 30, 2024 at 06:16 PM
Adiyan, 125-250 vs. 150-253 watt, not much difference, bro, especially when you put this in a PC where the power supply is not a problem. Intel should continue its 10nm processor but at a lower price; this move definitely works.
+2 Reply
Avatar
also an enthusiast February 17, 2025 at 11:41 PM
Truth, The 14900ks literally overclocked itself to hundreds of watts compared to the ultra 285k which was hundreds of watts lower on average. The 14th gen also had massive issues both hardware and software related. Considering the similar performance for way less power in practice, I would say keep going smaller.
+4 Reply
Avatar
SOC master March 18, 2025 at 09:43 AM
Yeah , you definitely correct . That's not much difference in Intel . Whre an 10 nm arm processor and 3nm arm processor have a huge difference in them . Accordingly the new intel 3nm processor should use 60-80 watts of power at the same level of performance . But why a 3nm processor with only 8 core cpu drawing this amount of wattage ? ๐Ÿค”
+8 Reply
Avatar
aby November 27, 2025 at 02:53 AM
SOC master, u r right๏ผŒthat's a skill issue
0 Reply
Englishะ ัƒััะบะธะน