Intel Core i9-14900 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

The benchmark database places the Intel Core i9-14900 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 in direct competition, and the recorded data shows a decisive outcome. The Core Ultra 9 285 wins 16 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with the Core i9-14900 managing a single win. This results in a significant gap in average benchmark scores: the Core Ultra 9 285 averages 75488, while the Core i9-14900 averages 58115. The Core Ultra 9 285 also sits in the 95th percentile among all CPUs, compared to the 92nd percentile for the Core i9-14900.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking difference appears in single-core performance. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 696 against 315 for the Core i9-14900, a 54.7% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows an even larger gap, with the Core Ultra 9 285 scoring 6909 versus 2212, a 68% lead. The PassMark single-thread test confirms the pattern, with the Core Ultra 9 285 at 4881 and the Core i9-14900 at 4323, an 11.4% difference.

Multi-core workloads follow the same trend, though with smaller margins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 against 31070 for the Core i9-14900, a 36.5% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 22.6% advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285, with scores of 20556 and 15910 respectively. The PassMark multi-thread test gives the Core Ultra 9 285 a 21.2% edge, scoring 56602 versus 44578.

Specialized workloads reveal where each processor excels. The Core i9-14900 wins PassMark integer math with a score of 175010, which is 6.2% ahead of the Core Ultra 9 285's 164869. However, the Core Ultra 9 285 dominates other PassMark tests: floating point math at 194988 versus 120262 (a 38.3% lead), extended instructions at 45357 versus 30624 (a 32.5% lead), and find prime numbers at 459 versus 188 (a 59% lead). Data compression and encryption also favor the Core Ultra 9 285, with scores of 602121 versus 550271 and 46949 versus 33540 respectively.

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test is the closest contest, with the Core Ultra 9 285 scoring 4933 against 4793 for the Core i9-14900, a narrow 2.8% margin. Physics and random string sorting also go to the Core Ultra 9 285, with 3598 versus 2486 and 73651 versus 61060.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different generations of Intel design. The Core i9-14900 uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. This node shrink contributes to the Core Ultra 9 285's efficiency and performance characteristics.

Both CPUs have 24 cores, but the thread counts differ. The Core i9-14900 supports 32 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285 supports 24 threads. The Core Ultra 9 285 does not use hyper-threading, which explains the lower thread count despite matching core count. Clock speeds also differ: the Core i9-14900 has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, while the Core Ultra 9 285 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz.

Cache layouts show notable changes. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core, compared to 80 KB and 2 MB per core for the Core i9-14900. Both share 36 MB of L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core i9-14900 has a 257 mm² die with no transistor count listed.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core i9-14900 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 9 285 supports only DDR5. The Core Ultra 9 285 has a listed memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses and support ECC memory. PCIe support differs: the Core i9-14900 provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 9 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics also change, with the Core i9-14900 using UHD Graphics 770 and the Core Ultra 9 285 using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

FAQ

Q: Why does the Core Ultra 9 285 have fewer threads than the Core i9-14900 despite having the same core count?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 uses 24 threads for 24 cores, meaning it does not enable simultaneous multi-threading. The Core i9-14900 has 32 threads for 24 cores, indicating it uses hyper-threading on some or all cores.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core i9-14900 has a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, while the Core Ultra 9 285 has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher base clock at 2.50 GHz versus 2.00 GHz.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark lead recorded between these two?

A: The largest lead is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 6909 against 2212 for the Core i9-14900, a 68% advantage.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Core i9-14900 wins?

A: Yes, the Core i9-14900 wins PassMark integer math, scoring 175010 against 164869 for the Core Ultra 9 285, a 6.2% margin.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Core i9-14900 and the Core Ultra 9 285 support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a larger L2 cache per core?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has 3 MB of L2 cache per core, while the Core i9-14900 has 2 MB per core.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 for most workloads. Its average benchmark score of 75488 is about 30% higher than the Core i9-14900's 58115. The Core Ultra 9 285 wins 16 out of 17 head-to-head tests, including all Cinebench multi-core and single-core tests, all PassMark tests except integer math, and every specialized workload measured. The 95th percentile ranking versus 92nd percentile further confirms its overall superiority.

The Core i9-14900 retains a specific niche: integer math. Its 175010 score in PassMark integer math, a 6.2% win, indicates that workloads heavily dependent on integer operations may see an advantage. Additionally, its 32 threads versus 24 threads could matter in scenarios where thread count is the limiting factor, though the recorded benchmarks do not reflect any such advantage.

For buyers, the choice depends on workload. The Core Ultra 9 285 is the stronger all-around performer. The Core i9-14900 is the pick only when integer math performance is the priority. Both CPUs are locked, meaning neither has an unlocked multiplier. Both have the same 65 W TDP, so power envelopes are identical.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i9-14900 | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 |

|---|---|---|

| Threads | 32 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 2.00 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.80 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Arrow Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 257 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Launch MSRP | $549 | $579 |

| Part Number | SRN3V | SRQD4 |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins across the vast majority of recorded tests. Single-core performance is its strongest area, with leads ranging from 11.4% in PassMark single-thread to 68% in Cinebench R23 single-core. Multi-core workloads also fall heavily in its favor, with Cinebench R23 multi-core showing a 36.5% advantage. Specialized tasks like floating point math, extended instructions, and prime number finding all go to the Core Ultra 9 285 with margins between 32.5% and 59%. Data compression, encryption, physics, and random string sorting also favor it, with leads from 8.6% to 30.9%.

The Intel Core i9-14900 wins only PassMark integer math, scoring 175010 versus 164869. This 6.2% advantage is its sole victory. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test is its closest loss, trailing by just 2.8%, but it still loses. No other benchmark shows the Core i9-14900 ahead.

The Core Ultra 9 285 also posts a higher average benchmark score and a higher percentile ranking. Its 75488 average score places it among the top 5% of all CPUs, while the Core i9-14900's 58115 places it in the top 8%. The database records 16 wins for the Core Ultra 9 285 and 1 win for the Core i9-14900, leaving no ambiguity about which processor dominates the benchmark suite.