Intel Core Ultra 5 245K vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285T Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a fascinating split between these two Arrow Lake processors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K wins 12 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T takes 5. But the margins tell a more nuanced story than the raw win count.

The Ultra 5 245K's most decisive victory comes in PassMark extended instructions, where it scores 37617 against the Ultra 9 285T's 27477, a commanding 36.9% advantage. Data compression also favors the Ultra 5 heavily: 458817 versus 384140, a 19.4% gap. Prime number finding shows a 20% lead (414 versus 345), and random string sorting goes to the Ultra 5 by 15.5% (55098 versus 47695).

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 5 245K posts 3850 versus 3384, a 13.8% win. The R20 multicore result is closer at 9% (15368 versus 14100), and the Ultra 5 also takes R20 singlecore by the same 9% margin (2169 versus 1990). PassMark multithread favors the Ultra 5 by 7.8% (43047 versus 39931), physics by 8.4% (3081 versus 2842), and data encryption by a modest 3.8% (33286 versus 32061). Single-thread performance in PassMark is nearly even, with the Ultra 5 ahead just 3% (4714 versus 4576).

The Ultra 9 285T, however, delivers the largest single margin in the entire comparison. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, it scores 4739 against the Ultra 5's 2132, a massive 55% advantage. The R15 singlecore result shows a 32.5% lead (477 versus 322), and R23 multicore goes to the Ultra 9 by 25.3% (33573 versus 25066). PassMark integer math favors the Ultra 9 by 25.6% (132433 versus 98524), while floating point math is a narrower 5.3% win (137923 versus 130678).

The pattern is clear: the Ultra 5 245K dominates in most PassMark workloads and older Cinebench versions, while the Ultra 9 285T excels in the newer Cinebench R23 tests and integer-heavy work. The average benchmark score reflects this mixed picture: the Ultra 5 245K sits at 54053, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 9 285T averages 51310, also in the 91st percentile. The Ultra 5's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6505P (0.7% ahead), Intel Core i7-14700F (0.8% ahead), and Intel Xeon Phi 7290 (1.1% ahead), with the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D trailing by 1.3%. The Ultra 9 285T sits 0.6% ahead of the Intel Core i9-14900T, 0.8% behind the Intel Core i9-13900F, and 1.1% and 1.2% ahead of the Intel Core i7-13850HX and AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT respectively.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K has 14 cores and 14 threads. Neither processor supports additional threads beyond its core count.

Q: Why does the Ultra 5 245K win more benchmarks despite having fewer cores?

A: The Ultra 5 245K has a base clock of 4.20 GHz compared to the Ultra 9 285T's 1.40 GHz, and its boost clock of 5.20 GHz is close to the Ultra 9's 5.40 GHz. The higher base clock allows the Ultra 5 to sustain performance in many workloads, particularly in PassMark tests where it wins 10 of 12 categories.

Q: Where does the Ultra 9 285T show its strength?

A: The Ultra 9 285T excels in Cinebench R23, winning both multicore (33573 versus 25066) and singlecore (4739 versus 2132) by substantial margins. It also leads in PassMark integer math by 25.6% and floating point math by 5.3%.

Q: How do the cache configurations compare?

A: Both processors have 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache differs: the Ultra 9 285T has 36 MB shared, while the Ultra 5 245K has 24 MB shared.

Q: Are these processors compatible with the same motherboards?

A: Yes, both use Intel Socket 1851. They also share the same Gen 5 PCIe implementation with 20 lanes (CPU only), dual-channel DDR5 memory support, 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, and ECC memory support.

Q: Do they have the same integrated graphics?

A: Yes, both feature Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The integrated graphics are identical between the two processors.

Architecture Differences

Both processors belong to the Core Ultra Series 2 and share the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S. They are built on the same 3 nm process node at TSMC, with identical transistor counts of 17,800 million and the same die size of 243 mm². The foundry arrangement is also the same, with TSMC manufacturing both chips.

The core configuration is where the architectures diverge in execution. The Ultra 9 285T packs 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra 5 245K offers 14 cores and 14 threads. Neither chip uses simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts. The cache hierarchy scales with the core disparity: the Ultra 9's shared L3 cache spans 36 MB, while the Ultra 5 makes do with 24 MB. Per-core L1 and L2 caches remain identical at 192 KB and 3 MB respectively.

Clock behavior represents a significant architectural tuning difference. The Ultra 5 245K runs a 4.20 GHz base clock and boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the Ultra 9 285T operates at a dramatically lower 1.40 GHz base but reaches 5.40 GHz boost. This suggests the Ultra 9 285T is designed to idle extremely low and spike high when demand arrives, whereas the Ultra 5 maintains a higher sustained floor.

Power delivery differs sharply. The Ultra 5 245K carries a 125 TDP rating, while the Ultra 9 285T operates at just 35 TDP. This positions the Ultra 9 285T as a low-power variant within the same Arrow Lake family, despite having more cores and a higher boost ceiling. The Ultra 5 245K has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the Ultra 9 285T's multiplier is locked.

Both processors integrate Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, identical memory controllers supporting dual-channel DDR5 at 102.4 GB/s, and the same Gen 5 PCIe implementation with 20 CPU lanes. ECC memory support is present on both.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 245K | Intel Core Ultra 9 285T |

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

| Cores | 14 | 24 |

| Threads | 14 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 4.20 GHz | 1.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 125 | 35 |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Release Date | 2024-10-23 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | $319 | $549 |

| Multiplier | Unlocked | Locked |

| Part Number | SRQCT | SRQD3 |

The two chips share their L1 cache (192 KB per core), L2 cache (3 MB per core), memory support (DDR5 dual-channel), memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s), PCIe configuration (Gen 5, 20 lanes CPU only), integrated graphics (Arc Xe-LPG 64EU), socket (Intel Socket 1851), process node (3 nm), foundry (TSMC), transistor count (17,800 million), die size (243 mm²), and ECC memory support. Both are active production desktop parts.

The Verdict

The data points to two distinct design philosophies within the same architecture generation. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K wins 12 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks and posts a higher average benchmark score of 54053 versus 51310 for the Ultra 9 285T. It achieves this with 10 fewer cores, relying on its 4.20 GHz base clock and unlocked multiplier. The Ultra 5 245K is the better all-around performer in the recorded database results, particularly for users who prioritize PassMark workloads and older Cinebench versions.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T is not a conventional flagship. Its 35 TDP rating and 1.40 GHz base clock signal a focus on efficiency and burst performance. It wins decisively in Cinebench R23, both multicore (25.3% ahead) and singlecore (55% ahead), and takes PassMark integer math by 25.6% and floating point math by 5.3%. For workloads that scale with core count and newer Cinebench iterations, the Ultra 9 285T is the stronger choice despite its lower average score.

The launch MSRP difference is notable: $319 for the Ultra 5 245K versus $549 for the Ultra 9 285T. The Ultra 5 245K delivers more benchmark wins and a higher average score at a lower launch price, while the Ultra 9 285T offers more cores, more L3 cache, and a higher boost clock for those specific workloads that favor it. The locked multiplier on the Ultra 9 285T limits tuning flexibility, whereas the Ultra 5 245K's unlocked multiplier invites overclocking.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core Ultra 5 245K: Choose this processor if you value broad benchmark coverage and higher average performance. It wins in PassMark data compression (19.4% ahead), extended instructions (36.9% ahead), prime number finding (20% ahead), random string sorting (15.5% ahead), multithread (7.8% ahead), physics (8.4% ahead), data encryption (3.8% ahead), and single-thread (3% ahead). It also takes Cinebench R15 multicore by 13.8% and R20 multicore and singlecore by 9% each. Its 125 TDP and unlocked multiplier make it the more conventional desktop part for general use.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285T: This processor wins where core count and burst clocks matter most. Cinebench R23 multicore shows a 25.3% advantage (33573 versus 25066), and R23 singlecore is its crowning achievement at 55% ahead (4739 versus 2132). Cinebench R15 singlecore goes to the Ultra 9 by 32.5%. PassMark integer math favors it by 25.6% (132433 versus 98524), and floating point math by 5.3% (137923 versus 130678). Its 35 TDP rating and 24 cores make it the efficiency-oriented option for heavily threaded workloads, particularly those that respond to the newer Cinebench R23 rendering pipeline.