Intel Core i9-12900 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 holds the edge with an average benchmark score of 48107, compared to 47765 for the Intel Core i9-12900. The delta between them is just 0.7%, placing both in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench multi-core tests?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245 wins every Cinebench multi-core test by a consistent 15.5% margin. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 32987 versus 28563 for the i9-12900.

Q: Are there any workloads where the older i9-12900 wins?

A: Yes. The i9-12900 wins PassMark integer math by 26.5% (127512 vs 93709) and data compression by 6.2% (407899 vs 382742). These are the only two benchmark wins out of 17 head-to-head tests.

Q: What is the launch MSRP difference between these processors?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245 has a launch MSRP of $270, while the Core i9-12900 launched at $519. This makes the Ultra 5 significantly less expensive at launch.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and the Intel Core i9-12900 support ECC memory. However, they differ in memory type support, with the Ultra 5 supporting DDR5 only and the i9-12900 supporting both DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: Which CPU has better single-thread performance?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245 is clearly ahead in single-thread tests. It scores 4657 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 4032 for the i9-12900, a 15.5% advantage. PassMark single-thread shows a smaller but still decisive 11.8% lead.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two Intel processors is substantial. The Core Ultra 5 245 is built on Arrow Lake-S architecture using a 3 nm process from TSMC, while the i9-12900 uses the older Alder Lake-S design on Intel's 10 nm process. The die sizes reflect the different design approaches: 243 mm² for the Arrow Lake chip versus 215 mm² for Alder Lake. The 3 nm process packs 17,800 million transistors into the Ultra 5 245, whereas the i9-12900's transistor count is not listed.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The Ultra 5 245 provides 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, with 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The i9-12900 offers only 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, but compensates with a larger 30 MB shared L3 pool. The bigger per-core L2 on the Ultra 5 likely contributes to its strong single-thread scores, while the larger L3 on the i9-12900 helps in some multi-threaded workloads.

Core and thread configurations also differ. The Ultra 5 245 has 14 cores and 14 threads, indicating no hyperthreading on any core. The i9-12900 has 16 cores and 24 threads, meaning 8 of its cores support hyperthreading. Despite having fewer cores and threads, the Ultra 5 245 still wins most multi-core benchmarks, which highlights the efficiency gains from the 3 nm process.

Memory bandwidth is another major differentiator. The Ultra 5 245 supports DDR5 exclusively with dual-channel memory and achieves 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The i9-12900 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but its memory bandwidth tops out at 76.8 GB/s. The socket changes as well: the Ultra 5 245 uses Intel Socket 1851, while the i9-12900 uses Intel Socket 1700.

Integrated graphics differ in generation and capability. The Ultra 5 245 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, whereas the i9-12900 has UHD Graphics 770. PCIe connectivity also varies, with the Ultra 5 245 offering 20 CPU lanes of Gen 5 versus 16 lanes on the i9-12900.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data tells a clear story of generational improvement, with the Core Ultra 5 245 winning 15 of 17 head-to-head tests. The most lopsided victory comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 5 245 scores 399 versus just 121 for the i9-12900 — a massive 229.8% advantage. This suggests the new architecture dramatically improves integer-heavy computational workloads.

Cinebench results are uniformly in favor of the Ultra 5 245, with every test showing exactly a 15.5% delta. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the scores are 3324 against 2879. Single-core R15 shows 469 versus 406. The R20 and R23 variants follow the same pattern: R20 multi-core 13854 vs 11996, R20 single-core 1955 vs 1693, R23 multi-core 32987 vs 28563, and R23 single-core 4657 vs 4032. This consistency across all Cinebench versions indicates a fundamental per-clock efficiency advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark multi-thread testing confirms the pattern with a 15.5% win for the Ultra 5 245 (38809 vs 33608). Physics performance shows an even larger gap: the Ultra 5 245 scores 2743, beating the i9-12900's 1730 by 58.6%. Floating-point math also favors the new chip, with 121454 versus 91514, a 32.7% margin. Extended instructions show a 32.1% lead (32731 vs 24777), and data encryption is 30.9% better (30374 vs 23203).

Random string sorting goes to the Ultra 5 245 with 48661 versus 44070, a 10.4% win. Single-thread PassMark scores 4475 versus 4003, an 11.8% advantage. The i9-12900's two wins are notable but isolated. Integer math shows the older chip dominating with 127512 versus 93709, a 26.5% margin. Data compression also favors the i9-12900, scoring 407899 versus 382742 for the Ultra 5 245, a 6.2% difference.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. The Core Ultra 5 245 has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the i9-12900 has 16 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks differ substantially: 3.50 GHz for the Ultra 5 245 versus 2.40 GHz for the i9-12900. Boost clocks are identical at 5.10 GHz for both.

Process technology is a major divergence point. The Ultra 5 245 uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, while the i9-12900 uses Intel's 10 nm process. This leads to different transistor counts and die sizes, with the Ultra 5 245 at 17,800 million transistors and 243 mm², while the i9-12900 has an unspecified transistor count and a 215 mm² die.

Cache configurations differ in every level. L1 cache is 192 KB per core on the Ultra 5 245 versus 80 KB per core on the i9-12900. L2 cache is 3 MB per core versus 1.25 MB per core. L3 cache reverses the trend: 24 MB shared on the Ultra 5 245 versus 30 MB shared on the i9-12900.

Memory support shows the i9-12900 with more flexibility, supporting both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 245 supports DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth favors the newer chip at 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. PCIe lanes differ as well, with the Ultra 5 245 offering 20 Gen 5 lanes versus 16 on the i9-12900.

The integrated graphics are different generations: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU on the Ultra 5 245 versus UHD Graphics 770 on the i9-12900. Socket compatibility changes from Socket 1700 to Socket 1851. The multiplier is locked on the Ultra 5 245 but unlocked on the i9-12900. Release dates differ by roughly three years, with the i9-12900 launching in January 2022 and the Ultra 5 245 in January 2025. Part numbers also differ: SRVFE for the Ultra 5 245 and SRL4KQXQ3 for the i9-12900.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for most users: the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 outperforms the Intel Core i9-12900 in 15 of 17 benchmarks, including every Cinebench test. The average benchmark scores are close — 48107 versus 47765 — but the margin of victory is consistent and significant in most workloads. The Ultra 5 245 achieves this with fewer cores (14 versus 16) and fewer threads (14 versus 24), which speaks to the efficiency of the 3 nm Arrow Lake architecture.

The i9-12900 retains relevance only in specific workloads. Its integer math advantage (26.5% higher) and data compression edge (6.2% higher) suggest that some legacy code paths or highly parallel integer operations still favor the older design with more threads. However, these wins are narrow in scope and do not compensate for the broad performance deficit elsewhere.

For buyers choosing between these two, the Ultra 5 245 is the better recommendation for general computing, content creation, and single-threaded applications. The i9-12900 might be preferable only for workloads that specifically benefit from high thread counts in integer-heavy operations, though even then the overall benchmark picture favors the newer chip. The launch MSRP difference reinforces the Ultra 5 245's position as the more compelling option.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 dominates in rendering and content creation workloads. All Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both multi-core and single-core, show a consistent 15.5% advantage. This makes it the clear choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any application relying on Cinebench-style workloads. Physics simulation also strongly favors the Ultra 5 245 with a 58.6% win, suggesting better performance in games or scientific applications that use physics engines.

Encryption and security workloads are another strong area for the Ultra 5 245, with data encryption scoring 30.9% higher. Extended instruction sets show a 32.1% advantage, benefiting applications that leverage modern CPU instructions like AVX. Floating-point math is 32.7% better, which helps in scientific computing, financial modeling, and audio processing. Prime number calculation is the most extreme victory at 229.8% higher, indicating exceptional performance for that specific mathematical workload.

The i9-12900 finds its niche in integer-heavy parallel tasks. Integer math performance is 26.5% higher, which can benefit database operations, some cryptographic algorithms, and certain compilation tasks. Data compression shows a 6.2% advantage, making it slightly better for file archiving and compression workloads. These are narrow but real wins.

For single-threaded applications, the Ultra 5 245 is clearly superior with an 11.8% PassMark single-thread advantage and a 15.5% Cinebench R23 single-core lead. This translates to better responsiveness in everyday applications, faster web browsing, and improved performance in lightly threaded games. The i9-12900's unlocked multiplier offers overclocking potential that the locked Ultra 5 245 cannot match, though the benchmark data suggests the stock performance gap may be difficult to close.