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

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H and Intel Core i5-14490F are both strong performers in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, but they achieve this status through distinctly different strengths. The data shows a clear split: the Ultra 9 285H dominates in most multi-threaded and specialized workloads, while the i5-14490F takes a decisive lead in specific single-threaded and legacy rendering tests. The final benchmark tally is 12 wins for the Ultra 9 285H against 5 for the i5-14490F, but the margin of victory in those five wins is substantial enough to make the choice highly workload-dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H is the clear winner for compute-heavy, multi-threaded tasks. It secures victories in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests, and dominates in PassMark’s encryption, extended instructions, floating-point math, prime number finding, and physics simulations. The most striking win comes in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 9 285H scores 330 versus just 122 for the i5-14490F, a staggering 170.5% advantage. This indicates a significant architectural efficiency for repetitive integer workloads. For users running simulations, cryptographic operations, or scientific calculations, the Ultra 9 285H is unequivocally the stronger part.

Conversely, the Intel Core i5-14490F wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core, Cinebench R15 single-core, PassMark data compression, and PassMark integer math. The R23 multi-core result is particularly notable, as the i5-14490F scores 23000 against the Ultra 9’s 20781.5, a 9.6% lead. This suggests that in certain rendering workloads that scale well with the i5’s specific thread configuration, the desktop part can outperform the mobile flagship. The i5 also wins in single-threaded R15 and integer math, but the single-threaded R23 result is its most decisive victory, where it leads by 34.4%.

The PassMark single-threaded test, however, goes to the Ultra 9 285H with a score of 4415 versus 3873, a 14% lead. This creates a nuanced picture: the i5-14490F wins in some older single-threaded benchmarks (R15) and newer ones (R23), while the Ultra 9 wins in PassMark’s single-threaded metric. The overall trend is that the Ultra 9 285H is better for modern, parallelized workloads, while the i5-14490F retains an edge in specific applications that favor its core layout and clock strategy.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i5-14490F wins this specific test, scoring 23000 compared to the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H’s 20781.5, a 9.6% difference.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H have better single-thread performance?

A: It depends on the benchmark. The Ultra 9 285H wins PassMark single-thread with 4415 versus 3873 (a 14% lead), but the i5-14490F wins Cinebench R23 single-core with 3247 versus 2129.5 (a 34.4% lead).

Q: Which CPU is more efficient in encryption workloads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H is significantly faster in PassMark data encryption, scoring 26140 versus the i5-14490F’s 18225, a 43.4% advantage.

Q: Are these processors comparable in overall average benchmark score?

A: Yes, they are extremely close. The Ultra 9 285H has an average benchmark score of 38312, while the i5-14490F scores 38149. Both sit in the 86th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i5-14490F has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, which is higher than the i5-14490F’s 5.00 GHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a lopsided competition, with the Ultra 9 285H winning 12 of 17 head-to-head tests. The largest margin of victory belongs to the Ultra 9 in the PassMark find prime numbers test, with a 170.5% delta. This is followed by a 64.1% lead in floating-point math (109190 vs 66558) and a 43.4% lead in data encryption (26140 vs 18225). These aren’t marginal wins; they represent complete dominance in specific computational categories.

The i5-14490F’s wins are fewer but include some of the most important tests. Its biggest victory is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 3247 against the Ultra 9’s 2129.5, a 34.4% delta. It also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 9.6%, scoring 23000 vs 20781.5. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the i5 wins by a slim 4.3% margin (327 vs 313). The PassMark data compression and integer math wins are narrow, at 1.2% and 2.2% respectively.

In the other Cinebench tests, the Ultra 9 285H shows its strength. It wins R15 multi-core by 37.1% (3177.5 vs 2318) and R20 multi-core by 26.3% (12201 vs 9660). The R20 single-core test also goes to the Ultra 9 with a 26.3% lead (1722 vs 1363), which contrasts sharply with its loss in R23 single-core. The PassMark multithread test favors the Ultra 9 by 19.2% (34171 vs 28662), and it also leads in physics (20.1%), random string sorting (14.9%), and extended instructions (23.3%).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ significantly in their core configurations and platform requirements. The Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads, whereas the i5-14490F has 10 cores and 16 threads. This means the i5-14490F uses hyper-threading to reach 16 threads, while the Ultra 9 relies on its physical core count. The base clocks are 2.90 GHz for the Ultra 9 and 2.50 GHz for the i5-14490F, with boost clocks of 5.40 GHz and 5.00 GHz respectively.

The thermal design power (TDP) differs substantially, with the Ultra 9 rated at 45 watts and the i5-14490F at 65 watts. The socket types are incompatible: the Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2049, while the i5-14490F uses Intel Socket 1700. The Ultra 9 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, while the i5-14490F supports DDR4 and DDR5. The memory bandwidth for the Ultra 9 is specified at 102.4 GB/s, while no bandwidth figure is listed for the i5-14490F.

PCIe lanes also differ, with the Ultra 9 offering 8 CPU-only Gen 5 lanes and the i5-14490F offering 16 CPU-only Gen 5 lanes. The Ultra 9 includes integrated Arc Graphics 140T, whereas the i5-14490F has no integrated graphics (N/A). The i5-14490F supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 9 does not. The Ultra 9 has a larger L1 cache at 192 KB per core versus 80 KB per core, and a larger L2 cache at 3 MB per core versus 1.25 MB per core. Both have 24 MB of shared L3 cache.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is generational and fundamental. The Ultra 9 285H is built on Arrow Lake-H architecture using a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. In contrast, the i5-14490F uses Raptor Lake-R architecture on a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. This process advantage is a key reason for the Ultra 9’s efficiency in power and performance per watt, despite its lower TDP of 45 watts versus 65 watts.

The Ultra 9 is part of Core Ultra Series 2, while the i5-14490F is from Core 14th Gen. The Ultra 9’s die size is not listed, but the i5-14490F has a die size of 215 mm². The cache hierarchy reflects the different core designs: the Ultra 9 uses a larger per-core L1 and L2 cache, which contributes to its strong performance in integer and floating-point operations. The i5-14490F’s smaller per-core cache is offset by its higher boost clock in some single-threaded scenarios.

The i5-14490F is a desktop part, while the Ultra 9 is a mobile part. This explains the socket differences and the absence of integrated graphics on the i5-14490F. The Ultra 9’s integrated Arc Graphics 140T is a significant feature for systems without a discrete GPU. The release dates also differ, with the Ultra 9 released in 2025-01-12 and the i5-14490F released in 2023-12-31.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear verdict: pick the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H for modern, multi-threaded workloads that stress encryption, floating-point math, and parallel processing. Its 170.5% lead in prime number finding and 64.1% lead in floating-point math are decisive. The 45-watt TDP combined with the 3 nm TSMC process means it achieves this performance in a more power-efficient package, making it ideal for mobile workstations or compact systems.

Pick the Intel Core i5-14490F for specific single-threaded and legacy rendering tasks. Its 34.4% victory in Cinebench R23 single-core and 9.6% win in R23 multi-core suggest that for certain Cinebench workloads, the desktop i5 is superior. The 65-watt TDP and 10-core/16-thread configuration on Socket 1700 make it a traditional desktop choice for users upgrading existing platforms with DDR4 support.

The overall average benchmark scores are nearly identical (38312 vs 38149), so the decision rests entirely on the specific application. For users prioritizing encryption, physics simulations, and general floating-point math, the Ultra 9 285H is the definitive choice. For users focused on Cinebench R23 rendering or integer-heavy data compression, the i5-14490F offers a targeted advantage. The i5-14490F also wins in PassMark integer math and data compression, making it a viable option for specific content creation pipelines. The Ultra 9’s integrated graphics and lower TDP provide additional flexibility, while the i5-14490F’s lack of integrated graphics requires a discrete GPU.