Intel Core i5-14490F vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous in this matchup. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 posts the winning score. The Intel Core i5-14490F does not win a single test in the database. The only question is the size of the margin, which ranges from a modest 20.7% in single-thread workloads to a dominant 73.4% in prime number computation.

The Core Ultra 9 285 sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs tracked in the database, while the Core i5-14490F ranks in the 86th percentile. That percentile gap translates into an average benchmark score of 75,488 for the Ultra 9 versus 38,149 for the i5-14490F. The average score of the Ultra 9 is roughly double that of the i5-14490F, which is consistent with its 24 cores versus 10 cores and its larger cache hierarchy.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each chip clarifies the competitive positioning. The Core i5-14490F's average score of 38,149 places it within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 7 250 (38,221), the Intel Core i5-13600HX (38,261), and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T (38,194). It is essentially tied with those processors in aggregate performance. The Core Ultra 9 285, with an average score of 75,488, sits within 0.3% of the AMD EPYC 8224P (75,582), the AMD EPYC 4545P (75,373), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 series (75,716 and 75,738). This indicates the Ultra 9 285 competes at the server-class level in multi-threaded throughput, even though it is a desktop part.

The workload split favors the Ultra 9 285 across every category measured. In Cinebench tests, the margin holds at a consistent 53% advantage for the Ultra 9 in both single-core and multi-core runs. PassMark tests show a wider spread, with the Ultra 9 leading by 20.7% in single-thread, 41.8% in physics, 43.5% in data compression, 46.7% in integer math, 49.4% in multithread, 51.7% in random string sorting, 52.1% in extended instructions, 61.2% in data encryption, 65.9% in floating point math, and 73.4% in prime number finding. These numbers indicate that the Ultra 9's advantage grows with workload complexity and parallelism.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and foundries. The Core i5-14490F uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, built on Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 215 mm². The Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, built on TSMC's 3 nm process with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. The shift to TSMC's 3 nm node allows for a significantly denser transistor layout, which explains how the Ultra 9 packs 24 cores into a die that is only 28 mm² larger.

The core counts differ sharply. The i5-14490F has 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with performance and efficiency cores. The Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, which suggests no hyperthreading on the performance cores, a design choice that trades thread count for other efficiencies. Both CPUs share a base clock of 2.50 GHz, but the boost clock differs: the i5-14490F reaches 5.00 GHz, while the Ultra 9 285 reaches 5.60 GHz.

Cache allocation shows the Ultra 9's advantage at every level. The i5-14490F has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations benefit latency-sensitive workloads, while the 50% larger L3 pool helps with data-heavy tasks. The Ultra 9 also supports DDR5 memory exclusively with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the i5-14490F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus without a recorded bandwidth figure.

The socket and platform differ completely. The i5-14490F uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851. The PCIe configuration also differs: the i5-14490F has Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra 9 285 has Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The Ultra 9 includes integrated graphics in the form of Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, whereas the i5-14490F has no integrated graphics. The Ultra 9 also supports ECC memory, which the i5-14490F does not. Both processors have locked multipliers, so neither supports overclocking via multiplier adjustment. The Ultra 9 285 carries a launch MSRP of $579, while the i5-14490F has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent 53% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285 across all six tests. In Cinebench R15, the Ultra 9 scores 4,933 multi-core versus 2,318 for the i5-14490F, and 696 single-core versus 327. In Cinebench R20, the Ultra 9 scores 20,556 multi-core versus 9,660, and 2,901 single-core versus 1,363. In Cinebench R23, the Ultra 9 scores 48,945 multi-core versus 23,000, and 6,909 single-core versus 3,247. The uniformity of the 53% delta across both single-core and multi-core tests suggests the Ultra 9's advantage comes from architectural improvements rather than just raw core count, since single-core performance improved by the same margin as multi-core.

PassMark tests reveal where the gap widens. The largest single margin is in find prime numbers, where the Ultra 9 scores 459 versus 122 for the i5-14490F, a 73.4% lead. This workload is highly sensitive to integer arithmetic throughput and cache latency, both of which favor the Ultra 9's larger caches and newer architecture. Floating point math shows a 65.9% lead (194,988 versus 66,558), and data encryption shows a 61.2% lead (46,949 versus 18,225). These three tests indicate the Ultra 9's advantage grows in compute-heavy, algorithmically dense workloads.

The smallest margin is in PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra 9 scores 4,881 versus 3,873 for the i5-14490F, a 20.7% lead. This narrower gap shows that in lightly threaded tasks, the architecture difference matters less, though the Ultra 9 still wins clearly. Data compression shows a 43.5% lead (602,121 versus 340,026), integer math shows a 46.7% lead (164,869 versus 87,844), and multithread shows a 49.4% lead (56,602 versus 28,662). Extended instructions show a 52.1% lead (45,357 versus 21,731), random string sorting shows a 51.7% lead (73,651 versus 35,608), and physics shows a 41.8% lead (3,598 versus 2,093).

The data reveals a pattern: the Ultra 9's advantage scales with the complexity and parallelism of the workload. In simple single-thread tests, it leads by roughly one-fifth. In moderately parallel workloads, the lead grows to around half. In highly parallel or algorithmically complex workloads, the lead approaches three-quarters. The i5-14490F never closes the gap in any test, and the smallest delta is still a decisive 20.7%.

The Verdict

The database shows no scenario where the Intel Core i5-14490F outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 9 285. Every recorded benchmark, from Cinebench R15 to PassMark single-thread, favors the Ultra 9. The i5-14490F's average benchmark score of 38,149 places it in the 86th percentile, which is respectable for a mainstream desktop processor. Its nearest rivals, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T and AMD Ryzen 7 250, sit within 0.3% of its score, indicating it competes at the upper end of the mid-range segment.

The Core Ultra 9 285, with an average score of 75,488, sits in the 95th percentile and competes against AMD EPYC server processors in aggregate performance. Its nearest rivals are all AMD EPYC or high-end Ryzen PRO parts, which confirms its position at the top of the desktop performance stack. The 24-core, 24-thread configuration with 36 MB of L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth delivers roughly double the aggregate performance of the i5-14490F.

For users with workloads that scale across many cores, such as rendering, encryption, or floating point math, the Ultra 9 285 delivers between 1.5 and 2.6 times the performance of the i5-14490F, depending on the specific task. The largest delta, 73.4% in prime number finding, shows the Ultra 9's architectural efficiency in algorithmically intense workloads. For single-threaded tasks, the Ultra 9 still leads by 20.7%, which is significant but not overwhelming.

The i5-14490F remains a capable desktop processor for its segment, but the data does not support choosing it over the Ultra 9 285 in any measured workload. The Ultra 9 285 also adds integrated graphics, ECC memory support, and 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, features absent from the i5-14490F. The i5-14490F's support for DDR4 memory and its smaller physical footprint on Socket 1700 may matter for platform compatibility, but in pure performance terms, the Ultra 9 285 is the clear winner across all 17 recorded benchmarks.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Core Ultra 9 285 in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 versus 23,000 for the Core i5-14490F, a 53% advantage. The same 53% delta appears in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

Q: Does the Core i5-14490F win any benchmark against the Core Ultra 9 285?

A: No. Across all 17 head-to-head tests recorded in the database, the Core Ultra 9 285 wins every single one. The smallest margin is 20.7% in PassMark single-thread.

Q: What is the core and thread difference between these two processors?

A: The Core i5-14490F has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. Both have a base clock of 2.50 GHz, but the Ultra 9 boosts to 5.60 GHz versus 5.00 GHz for the i5-14490F.

Q: How does the cache compare between the two CPUs?

A: The Core i5-14490F has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, while the Core i5-14490F does not. The Ultra 9 also uses DDR5 exclusively with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the i5-14490F supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 459 versus 122 for the Core i5-14490F, a 73.4% advantage. The smallest gap is in PassMark single-thread, at 20.7%.