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

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows a decisive performance hierarchy between these two Intel desktop processors. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K wins 16 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core i5-14490F secures a single win in Cinebench R23 single-core. The Core Ultra 9 285K delivers substantially higher multi-threaded throughput across every Cinebench and PassMark test that stresses parallel execution, which aligns with its larger core count and higher power envelope. The Core i5-14490F remains relevant only for workloads that depend on very high single-thread frequency, where it leads by 36.6% in Cinebench R23 single-core. Buyers requiring maximum rendering, encryption, compression, or physics simulation performance should select the Core Ultra 9 285K. The Core i5-14490F suits lighter workloads where its 65 W TDP and smaller platform footprint matter more than absolute throughput, though the data shows it trails by significant margins in nearly every measured category.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and manufacturing approaches. The Core i5-14490F uses Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 9 285K uses Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm process fabricated by TSMC. The Core Ultra 9 285K integrates 17,800 million transistors across a 243 mm² die, whereas the Core i5-14490F has no transistor count recorded and a smaller 215 mm² die.

Core configuration differs substantially. The Core i5-14490F has 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating a hybrid layout with performance and efficiency cores. The Core Ultra 9 285K has 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning every core operates as a single thread with no simultaneous multithreading. Clock speeds favor the Core Ultra 9 285K, with a 3.70 GHz base clock and 5.70 GHz boost clock versus 2.50 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost on the Core i5-14490F. The Core Ultra 9 285K consumes more power, rated at 125 W TDP versus 65 W.

Cache hierarchies scale with core counts. The Core i5-14490F provides 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 285K offers 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. Memory support differs as well: the Core i5-14490F accepts both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 285K supports DDR5 only. The Core Ultra 9 285K records a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, a figure absent for the Core i5-14490F. The Core Ultra 9 285K also supports ECC memory, which the Core i5-14490F does not.

Platform features diverge. The Core i5-14490F uses Intel Socket 1700 and provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 9 285K uses Intel Socket 1851 and provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 9 285K includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the Core i5-14490F has no integrated graphics. The Core Ultra 9 285K has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Core i5-14490F is locked. Release dates differ by roughly ten months, with the Core i5-14490F launching in December 2023 and the Core Ultra 9 285K in October 2024. The Core Ultra 9 285K has a launch MSRP of $589.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 9 285K dominates every multi-core benchmark in the comparison. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 6494 versus 2318 for the Core i5-14490F, a 64.3% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 24003 versus 9660, a 59.8% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core records 42522 versus 23000, a 45.9% lead. These results confirm that the Core Ultra 9 285K scales far better with thread-heavy rendering workloads.

PassMark multi-thread results follow the same pattern. The Core Ultra 9 285K scores 67260 versus 28662, a 57.4% margin. Integer math shows 172379 versus 87844, a 49% advantage. Floating-point math delivers 224324 versus 66558, a 70.3% gap. Extended instructions reach 62277 versus 21731, a 65.1% margin. Data compression yields 790052 versus 340026, a 57% lead. Data encryption records 57745 versus 18225, a 68.4% advantage. Random string sorting shows 94927 versus 35608, a 62.5% gap. Prime number finding scores 541 versus 122, a 77.4% margin, the largest single delta in the dataset. Physics simulation records 3938 versus 2093, a 46.9% lead.

Single-thread results are more nuanced. The Core Ultra 9 285K wins PassMark single-thread with 5087 versus 3873, a 23.9% margin. Cinebench R15 single-core also favors the Core Ultra 9 285K, scoring 359 versus 327, an 8.9% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a much larger gap: 3388 versus 1363, a 59.8% margin favoring the Core Ultra 9 285K. However, Cinebench R23 single-core reverses the trend. The Core i5-14490F scores 3247 versus 2377 for the Core Ultra 9 285K, a 36.6% advantage. This single win for the Core i5-14490F suggests that its Raptor Lake cores maintain higher sustained frequency in that specific test, while the Core Ultra 9 285K appears to throttle or clock lower under the same workload.

The overall average benchmark score reinforces the hierarchy. The Core Ultra 9 285K averages 83807, while the Core i5-14490F averages 38149. Percentile rankings place the Core Ultra 9 285K at 96th percentile among all CPUs, versus 86th percentile for the Core i5-14490F. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 9 285K include the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus at 0.2% higher average score, the AMD EPYC 4584PX at 0.9% lower, the AMD EPYC 9135 at 1% lower, and the AMD EPYC 7F72 at 1.5% higher. The Core i5-14490F sits within 0.3% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T, Intel Core i5-13600KF, AMD Ryzen 7 250, and Intel Core i5-13600HX, indicating tight competition in its performance class.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K wins 16 of 17 comparisons. The Intel Core i5-14490F wins one, specifically Cinebench R23 single-core.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285K leads by 64.3% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 59.8% in Cinebench R20 multi-core, and 45.9% in Cinebench R23 multi-core. PassMark multi-thread shows a 57.4% gap.

Q: Does the Core i5-14490F have any advantage in single-core tests?

A: Yes, it wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 36.6%, scoring 3247 versus 2377. However, the Core Ultra 9 285K wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 8.9%, Cinebench R20 single-core by 59.8%, and PassMark single-thread by 23.9%.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Core i5-14490F has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 9 285K has 24 cores and 24 threads, with no simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K supports ECC memory. The Core i5-14490F does not list ECC support.

Q: How do the two processors compare in percentile ranking?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285K ranks at the 96th percentile among all CPUs. The Core i5-14490F ranks at the 86th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 285K wins across nearly the entire benchmark suite, making it the clear choice for compute-intensive parallel workloads. Cinebench multi-core results indicate strong rendering performance for 3D artists and video editors. PassMark integer and floating-point math scores show capability in scientific computing and financial modeling. Data compression and encryption wins point to archive management and security-related tasks. The physics simulation score of 3938 versus 2093 suggests better performance in gaming physics and engineering simulations. The 77.4% lead in prime number finding confirms strong integer throughput for cryptography-related workloads. The Core Ultra 9 285K also holds the single-thread advantage in three of four single-core tests, meaning it does not sacrifice responsiveness for its multi-core dominance.

The Core i5-14490F wins only Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 3247 versus 2377, a 36.6% margin. This indicates that its Raptor Lake cores can sustain higher frequency in that particular benchmark, which may translate to advantages in lightly threaded applications that depend on a single core reaching maximum boost. The 65 W TDP also positions it as a lower-power option compared to the 125 W Core Ultra 9 285K, which could favor builds with modest cooling or power delivery. Its DDR4 memory support allows reuse of existing memory modules, whereas the Core Ultra 9 285K requires DDR5. The Core i5-14490F also operates on Intel Socket 1700, which may offer a lower platform entry cost than Socket 1851, though the data does not quantify platform pricing.

For users choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload type and platform constraints. The Core Ultra 9 285K delivers more than double the average benchmark score and wins 16 of 17 comparisons, with margins exceeding 45% in most multi-threaded tests. The Core i5-14490F offers a single notable single-core win and a lower TDP, but its overall throughput trails by a wide margin. The recorded data provides no scenario where the Core i5-14490F outperforms the Core Ultra 9 285K outside of that one Cinebench R23 single-core result.