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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and Intel Core i9-12900F represent two distinct Intel desktop strategies. The Ultra 5 is a new-generation part built on a modern process, while the i9 is a previous-generation flagship with more cores and threads. Benchmark data shows a clear split: the Ultra 5 dominates synthetic rendering and physics workloads, while the i9 retains an edge in specific integer and compression tasks. The database records 15 benchmark wins for the Ultra 5 against 2 for the i9, but the margins in those two losses are substantial.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in PassMark's find prime numbers test. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 scores 365, which is 187.4% higher than the i9-12900F's 127. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison, and it indicates a massive advantage in this specific mathematical workload. The Ultra 5's architecture appears far better suited to this kind of prime-number computation.

In floating point math, the Ultra 5 again shows a commanding lead. Its score of 120,548 beats the i9-12900F's 96,452 by 25%. This is a significant margin for a workload that is common in scientific and engineering applications. The Ultra 5 also wins the physics test decisively, scoring 2,569 against the i9's 1,842, a 39.5% advantage. This suggests superior performance in simulation and physics-based rendering tasks.

The data encryption test shows another strong win for the Ultra 5. It scores 30,236 versus the i9's 25,251, a 19.7% improvement. The extended instructions test follows a similar pattern, with the Ultra 5 at 33,304 and the i9 at 28,265, a 17.8% gain. These wins point to a more efficient execution engine for modern instruction sets.

Across the Cinebench suite, the Ultra 5 is uniformly faster. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score is 32,924 for the Ultra 5 versus 30,405 for the i9, a 8.3% win. The single-core score in the same test is 4,648 versus 4,292, also an 8.3% advantage. The same 8.3% delta appears in every Cinebench iteration, including R15 and R20, for both single and multi-core tests. This consistency suggests a fundamental per-clock or architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The PassMark multi-thread test shows the Ultra 5 ahead at 38,706 versus 35,912, a 7.8% win. The single-thread test is closer but still favors the Ultra 5: 4,394 versus 4,017, a 9.4% edge. Even random string sorting, a memory-latency sensitive task, goes to the Ultra 5 by a slim 1.4% margin, with scores of 49,140 and 48,477.

However, the i9-12900F has two notable victories. The first is in integer math, where it scores 129,504 against the Ultra 5's 91,187. This is a 29.6% delta in favor of the i9, a massive reversal. The i9's higher core and thread count likely drives this result, as integer math often scales well with more parallel resources. The second win is in data compression, where the i9 scores 451,402 versus the Ultra 5's 400,942, an 11.2% advantage. Compression workloads also benefit from the i9's 24 threads.

The overall average benchmark scores in the database reflect this split. The Ultra 5 has an average score of 48,995, which places it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. The i9-12900F has an average of 47,176, placing it in the 89th percentile. The Ultra 5's closest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (0.5% higher average score) and the Intel Core i5-14600K (0.8% lower). The i9's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-13700KF (0.3% higher) and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900 (0.4% lower).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 wins every single-core test recorded. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 4,648 versus 4,292 for the i9-12900F, a 8.3% advantage. PassMark single-thread shows a 9.4% lead, with scores of 4,394 and 4,017.

Q: Is the Core i9-12900F better in any workload?

A: Yes, the i9-12900F wins two recorded benchmarks. It leads by 29.6% in PassMark integer math (129,504 versus 91,187) and by 11.2% in data compression (451,402 versus 400,942). These wins are likely due to its higher thread count.

Q: How do their Cinebench multi-core scores compare?

A: The Ultra 5 leads in all Cinebench multi-core tests. In R23, the score is 32,924 versus 30,405, an 8.3% margin. The R20 scores are 13,828 and 12,770, and the R15 scores are 3,318 and 3,064, all with the same 8.3% delta.

Q: What is the largest performance difference between the two?

A: The largest difference is in PassMark's find prime numbers test. The Ultra 5 scores 365, which is 187.4% higher than the i9's 127. This is the only test with a triple-digit percentage delta.

Q: Which CPU has a higher overall benchmark average?

A: The Ultra 5 has an average benchmark score of 48,995, compared to the i9's 47,176. The Ultra 5 also sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the i9 sits in the 89th percentile.

Q: Do the two CPUs share the same boost clock?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and the Intel Core i9-12900F have a maximum boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Their base clocks differ, however, with the Ultra 5 at 3.50 GHz and the i9 at 2.40 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, and is part of the Core Ultra Series 2. It is fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core i9-12900F uses the older Alder Lake architecture, codenamed Alder Lake-S, and is built on Intel's 10 nm process. This process difference is a major factor in the Ultra 5's efficiency and per-clock performance.

The core configurations also differ significantly. The Ultra 5 has 14 cores and 14 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. The i9-12900F has 16 cores and 24 threads, which includes hyper-threading on its performance cores. The i9's extra threads help in heavily parallel workloads like integer math and compression, as seen in the benchmark results.

Cache hierarchies are distinct as well. The Ultra 5 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, with a shared 24 MB L3 cache. The i9 has 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, but a larger shared 30 MB L3 cache. The Ultra 5's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches likely contribute to its strong single-thread and physics performance.

Memory support differs notably. The Ultra 5 supports DDR5 memory only, on a dual-channel bus, with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The i9 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but its maximum bandwidth is rated at 76.8 GB/s. The Ultra 5's higher memory bandwidth is a clear architectural advantage.

The integrated graphics also set them apart. The Ultra 5 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The i9-12900F has no integrated graphics at all, as indicated by the "F" suffix. This means the i9 requires a discrete GPU for any display output.

PCIe support differs in lane count. The Ultra 5 provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the i9 provides 16 lanes of PCIe Gen 5. Both use dual-channel memory buses and support ECC memory.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are a primary difference. The Ultra 5 has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the i9 has 16 cores and 24 threads. The base clock differs: 3.50 GHz for the Ultra 5 versus 2.40 GHz for the i9. Their boost clocks are identical at 5.10 GHz.

The process node is different, with the Ultra 5 on TSMC's 3 nm process and the i9 on Intel's 10 nm process. The die size also varies: 243 mm² for the Ultra 5 and 215 mm² for the i9. The transistor count is listed only for the Ultra 5 at 17,800 million.

Cache specifications differ in both size and organization. The Ultra 5 has 192 KB L1 per core and 3 MB L2 per core, while the i9 has 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core. The L3 cache is 24 MB shared on the Ultra 5 versus 30 MB shared on the i9.

Memory support is a key differentiator. The Ultra 5 supports only DDR5, while the i9 supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Their memory bandwidth figures are 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 5 and 76.8 GB/s for the i9.

The socket types are incompatible. The Ultra 5 uses Intel Socket 1851, while the i9 uses Intel Socket 1700. The Ultra 5 has integrated graphics, while the i9 does not. The Ultra 5 has a locked multiplier, while the i9 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. The release dates are January 2025 for the Ultra 5 and January 2022 for the i9. The launch MSRP is $270 for the Ultra 5 and $494 for the i9.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is the clear winner for most modern workloads. Its dominance in Cinebench tests, both single and multi-core, makes it the better choice for rendering and content creation tasks that rely on those engines. The 25% lead in floating point math and the 39.5% lead in physics point to strong performance in simulation, scientific computing, and 3D modeling. The 187.4% advantage in find prime numbers is exceptional for any workload involving number theory or cryptography-related calculations. The Ultra 5 also wins in data encryption, extended instructions, and single-threaded tasks, making it a versatile all-rounder for productivity and general use. Its integrated graphics add a layer of convenience for systems without a discrete GPU.

The Intel Core i9-12900F wins specifically in integer math and data compression. The 29.6% margin in integer math is substantial and indicates that the i9 is better suited for workloads that involve heavy integer arithmetic, such as certain database operations, financial modeling, and some compilation tasks. The 11.2% win in data compression makes it a preferable option for file archiving, backup software, and workloads that involve heavy data packing and unpacking. The i9's 24 threads are the likely reason for these wins, as they provide more parallel execution resources for these specific tasks.

For a user choosing between the two, the decision hinges on the primary application. If the workload is dominated by rendering, physics, floating-point math, or general single-threaded responsiveness, the Ultra 5 offers a consistent and often large advantage. If the workload is heavily integer-based or involves significant compression, the i9's higher thread count provides a compelling reason to choose it despite its older architecture. The data shows the Ultra 5 wins 15 of 17 recorded benchmarks, but the two i9 wins come in areas where its core-count advantage matters most.