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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins 16 of the 17 recorded comparisons against the Intel Core i9-14900F. The single win for the i9-14900F comes in PassMark integer math, where it scores 177066 against 164869, a 7.4% advantage.

The largest gaps appear in specialized compute workloads. In PassMark extended instructions, the Ultra 9 285 scores 45357 versus 31084 for the i9-14900F, a 31.5% deficit for the older chip. PassMark floating point math shows a 38.7% gap, with the Ultra 9 285 at 194988 against 119550. The most extreme difference is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 9 285 delivers 459 versus 209, meaning the i9-14900F trails by 54.5%.

Cinebench results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 against 39551, a 19.2% lead. The single-core R23 test shows 6909 versus 5583, also a 19.2% gap. Every Cinebench generation recorded (R15, R20, R23) shows the same 19.2% or 19.3% deficit for the i9-14900F in both single-core and multi-core tests.

PassMark multi-thread performance puts the Ultra 9 285 at 56602 versus 46532, a 17.8% advantage. PassMark physics shows 3598 against 2899, a 19.4% lead for the Ultra 9 285. Data encryption favors the Ultra 9 285 with 46949 against 34644, a 26.2% gap. Random string sorting shows 73651 versus 63728, a 13.5% difference. Data compression is closer, with 602121 versus 564207, a 6.3% lead for the Ultra 9 285. Single-thread PassMark scores are 4881 versus 4506, a 7.7% advantage.

The overall average benchmark score reflects this dominance: the Ultra 9 285 averages 75488, while the i9-14900F averages 60008. That puts the Ultra 9 285 in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, compared to the 92nd percentile for the i9-14900F.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear choice toward the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 for almost any workload measured. It wins every Cinebench test, all PassMark tests except integer math, and does so with margins ranging from 6.3% to 54.5%. The i9-14900F retains only one specific strength: PassMark integer math, where its 7.4% lead suggests better handling of integer-heavy code paths.

For users running rendering workloads, the Cinebench results show the Ultra 9 285 is consistently about 19% faster across all versions of the benchmark, both single-threaded and multi-threaded. That consistency indicates a broad architectural improvement rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

The PassMark extended instructions result, with a 31.5% gap, points to significantly better SIMD or specialized instruction handling in the Ultra 9 285. Floating point math, with a 38.7% gap, reinforces that conclusion. The prime number finding test, where the Ultra 9 285 more than doubles the i9-14900F score, suggests a major advantage in branch-heavy or modulus-heavy algorithms.

The i9-14900F does not fall behind in every category. Its integer math win is real, and its data compression score of 564207 is only 6.3% behind the Ultra 9 285, which is the narrowest multi-core gap recorded. But those are isolated results against a broad sweep.

The percentile rankings confirm the overall picture. The Ultra 9 285 sits at the 95th percentile, three points above the i9-14900F at the 92nd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 9 285 are server-class AMD EPYC parts, with the EPYC 8224P 0.1% ahead and the EPYC 4545P 0.2% behind, placing it in elite company. The i9-14900F sits near mobile AMD Ryzen 9 parts, with the Ryzen 9 7945HX 0.2% ahead and the Ryzen 9 7945HX3D 0.6% behind.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and use different manufacturing approaches. The i9-14900F is built on the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-R, using a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, on a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC.

Core counts are identical at 24 cores, but thread counts differ. The i9-14900F supports 32 threads through Hyper-Threading, while the Ultra 9 285 has 24 threads with no hyperthreading. Despite fewer threads, the Ultra 9 285 achieves higher multi-core scores, indicating that its individual cores are substantially more efficient.

Base and boost clocks differ. The i9-14900F has a 2.00 GHz base clock and a 5.80 GHz boost clock. The Ultra 9 285 has a 2.50 GHz base clock and a 5.60 GHz boost clock. The Ultra 9 285 starts higher but boosts slightly lower, yet still wins all single-thread tests by roughly 19%, which points to higher instructions-per-clock rather than raw clock speed.

Cache configurations are larger on the Ultra 9 285. L1 cache is 192 KB per core versus 80 KB per core on the i9-14900F. L2 cache is 3 MB per core versus 2 MB per core. L3 cache is identical at 36 MB shared.

Memory support differs. The i9-14900F supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Ultra 9 285 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the i9-14900F has no bandwidth figure recorded. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity favors the Ultra 9 285 with Gen 5 and 20 lanes (CPU only), against Gen 5 and 16 lanes (CPU only) for the i9-14900F. The Ultra 9 285 also includes integrated graphics with Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, while the i9-14900F has no integrated graphics.

Die size and transistor counts differ substantially. The Ultra 9 285 has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The i9-14900F has no recorded transistor count on a 257 mm² die. The smaller die with more transistors reflects the denser 3 nm process.

Sockets are incompatible: the i9-14900F uses Intel Socket 1700, the Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851. Both processors have locked multipliers. Both are currently active in production. The i9-14900F launched with a launch MSRP of $524, while the Ultra 9 285 launched with a launch MSRP of $579.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900F has 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 threads. Both have 24 cores.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 9 285 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The Intel Core i9-14900F has no integrated graphics.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 19.2% higher than the Intel Core i9-14900F score of 39551.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900F supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 only. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900F has a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 boost clock of 5.60 GHz.

Q: How do the processors compare in PassMark integer math?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900F wins PassMark integer math with a score of 177066, which is 7.4% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 score of 164869.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins in rendering, as shown by its consistent 19% lead across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core tests. It wins in data encryption with a 26.2% margin, in extended instructions with a 31.5% margin, in floating point math with a 38.7% margin, and in prime number finding with a 54.5% margin. It also wins in physics simulation, multi-threaded PassMark, random string sorting, single-thread PassMark, and data compression, though the compression margin is the narrowest at 6.3%.

The Intel Core i9-14900F wins in PassMark integer math by 7.4%, scoring 177066 against 164869. This is the only recorded benchmark where the i9-14900F outperforms the Ultra 9 285.

The overall win count is 16 for the Ultra 9 285 and 1 for the i9-14900F. The average benchmark score difference is 75488 versus 60008, a margin of roughly 25.8% in favor of the Ultra 9 285.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Cores | 24 | 24 |

| Threads | 32 | 24 |

| Base clock | 2.00 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.80 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| TDP | 65 | 65 |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Arrow Lake |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 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) |

| L3 cache | 36 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | Not recorded | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | Yes |

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

| Integrated graphics | N/A | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | No |

| Launch MSRP | $524 | $579 |