Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF and Intel Core Ultra 9 285 are both Arrow Lake-S desktop processors on the Intel Socket 1851 platform, but they occupy very different positions in the lineup. The data shows a decisive sweep: the Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, with the Ultra 5 245KF taking zero wins. The average benchmark score for the Ultra 9 285 is 75,488 versus 55,093 for the Ultra 5 245KF, a gap that places the two chips in different performance percentiles (95th versus 91st). The Ultra 9 285 delivers higher raw performance across every workload category, but the Ultra 5 245KF counters with a lower launch MSRP, a higher base clock, and an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows no benchmark category where the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 9 285. The Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 head-to-head tests, so the use-case split is not about which chip wins a given task, but rather how large the margin is and what trade-offs exist outside performance.

For single-threaded workloads, the Ultra 9 285 leads by a narrow margin. In PassMark single-thread testing, the Ultra 9 285 scores 4,881 versus 4,715 for the Ultra 5 245KF, a delta of only 3.4 percent. This small gap indicates that for lightly threaded tasks, such as everyday desktop responsiveness or older applications, the two processors perform similarly. The Ultra 5 245KF has a higher base clock of 4.20 GHz versus 2.50 GHz, which helps close the single-core gap despite the Ultra 9 285's higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz versus 5.20 GHz.

For multi-threaded and heavily parallel workloads, the Ultra 9 285 dominates. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 versus 36,647 for the Ultra 5 245KF, a 25.1 percent advantage. PassMark integer math shows an even larger gap: 164,869 versus 98,854, a 40 percent lead for the Ultra 9 285. These results indicate that content creation, rendering, scientific computing, and other multi-core workloads clearly favor the Ultra 9 285.

The largest single margin is in PassMark floating-point math, where the Ultra 9 285 scores 194,988 versus 131,546 for the Ultra 5 245KF, a 32.5 percent advantage. Data compression follows at 602,121 versus 460,123, a 23.6 percent lead. The Ultra 5 245KF does not win any workload, so its only advantage is in price and overclocking flexibility, not measured performance.

Architecture Differences

Both processors use the same Arrow Lake-S architecture, built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. They share the same transistor count of 17,800 million and the same die size of 243 mm². The core counts differ significantly: the Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra 5 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads. Neither chip uses simultaneous multi-threading, so thread count equals core count.

Cache configurations differ. The L1 cache is 192 KB per core for both, and the L2 cache is 3 MB per core for both. The shared L3 cache is larger on the Ultra 9 285 at 36 MB versus 24 MB on the Ultra 5 245KF. This extra L3 capacity likely contributes to the Ultra 9 285's advantage in data-heavy workloads.

Memory support is identical: DDR5, dual-channel, with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The PCIe implementation is the same: Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU only. The integrated graphics differ: the Ultra 5 245KF has no integrated graphics (N/A), while the Ultra 9 285 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. ECC memory support is another differentiator: the Ultra 5 245KF does not support ECC, while the Ultra 9 285 does.

The Ultra 5 245KF has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the Ultra 9 285 is locked. Both processors are active production parts, and both are desktop market segment. The release dates differ: the Ultra 5 245KF launched on 2024-10-23, while the Ultra 9 285 launched later on 2024-12-31.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF have integrated graphics?

A: No, the Ultra 5 245KF has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A). The Ultra 9 285 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

Q: What is the L3 cache difference between the two?

A: The Ultra 9 285 has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ultra 5 245KF has 24 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF does not.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, compared to 36,647 for the Ultra 5 245KF, a 25.1 percent difference.

Q: Is the Ultra 5 245KF overclockable?

A: Yes, the Ultra 5 245KF has an unlocked multiplier. The Ultra 9 285 does not have an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The core and thread counts are the most significant: the Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra 5 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads. Base clocks differ substantially: 2.50 GHz for the Ultra 9 285 versus 4.20 GHz for the Ultra 5 245KF. Boost clocks are closer: 5.60 GHz versus 5.20 GHz.

Thermal design power (TDP) differs: the Ultra 9 285 has a 65 W TDP, while the Ultra 5 245KF has a 125 W TDP. The L3 cache is 36 MB on the Ultra 9 285 versus 24 MB on the Ultra 5 245KF. ECC memory support is present on the Ultra 9 285 but absent on the Ultra 5 245KF. Integrated graphics are present on the Ultra 9 285 (Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU) but absent on the Ultra 5 245KF.

The multiplier is unlocked on the Ultra 5 245KF but locked on the Ultra 9 285. Launch MSRP differs: $294 for the Ultra 5 245KF and $579 for the Ultra 9 285. Release dates differ: 2024-10-23 for the Ultra 5 245KF and 2024-12-31 for the Ultra 9 285. The part numbers are SRQCY for the Ultra 5 245KF and SRQD4 for the Ultra 9 285.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a consistent pattern: the Ultra 9 285 wins every test, with margins ranging from 3.4 percent to 40 percent. Single-threaded tests show the smallest gaps. PassMark single-thread scores are 4,881 for the Ultra 9 285 versus 4,715 for the Ultra 5 245KF, a 3.4 percent difference. PassMark find prime numbers shows a 9.4 percent lead for the Ultra 9 285 (459 versus 416). These narrow margins indicate that for single-core performance, the Ultra 5 245KF is competitive, likely due to its higher base clock.

Multi-threaded benchmarks show much larger gaps. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests all show a 25.1 percent advantage for the Ultra 9 285. The scores are 4,933 versus 3,693 in R15, 20,556 versus 15,391 in R20, and 48,945 versus 36,647 in R23. PassMark multithread shows a 23.8 percent lead (56,602 versus 43,110). PassMark integer math shows the largest margin at 40 percent (164,869 versus 98,854). PassMark floating-point math shows a 32.5 percent lead (194,988 versus 131,546).

Other PassMark tests also favor the Ultra 9 285 substantially. Data encryption shows a 28.9 percent lead (46,949 versus 33,381). Data compression shows a 23.6 percent lead (602,121 versus 460,123). Random string sorting shows a 25 percent lead (73,651 versus 55,206). Extended instructions show a 16.4 percent lead (45,357 versus 37,912). Physics shows a 16.7 percent lead (3,598 versus 2,998). Cinebench single-core tests also show a 25.1 percent lead for the Ultra 9 285 across R15 (696 versus 521), R20 (2,901 versus 2,172), and R23 (6,909 versus 5,173).

The average benchmark scores reflect the overall difference: 75,488 for the Ultra 9 285 versus 55,093 for the Ultra 5 245KF. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 5 245KF include the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D at 54,762 (0.6 percent lower) and the Intel Core 7 253PQE at 55,919 (1.5 percent higher). The Ultra 9 285's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 8224P at 75,582 (0.1 percent lower) and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D at 75,716 (0.3 percent lower).

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the stronger processor in every recorded benchmark. It wins all 17 head-to-head tests, with particularly large advantages in multi-core and math-intensive workloads. The 40 percent lead in PassMark integer math and the 32.5 percent lead in floating-point math indicate that compute-heavy applications will strongly favor the Ultra 9 285. The 25.1 percent lead across all Cinebench multi-core tests confirms this for rendering and content creation workloads.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF does not win any benchmark, but it has a different profile. Its higher base clock of 4.20 GHz helps it stay close in single-threaded tests, as shown by the 3.4 percent gap in PassMark single-thread. Its unlocked multiplier allows overclocking, which the Ultra 9 285 does not support. The Ultra 5 245KF also has a lower launch MSRP of $294 versus $579 for the Ultra 9 285, and a higher TDP of 125 W versus 65 W, indicating a different power envelope.

For users who prioritize maximum multi-core performance, the Ultra 9 285 is the clear choice from the data. Its 24 cores, 36 MB L3 cache, and top-tier benchmark results across all categories make it the higher-performing part. The Ultra 5 245KF is suitable for users who do not need the extra cores, who prefer the overclocking flexibility of an unlocked multiplier, or who accept lower measured performance in exchange for a lower launch price. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the Ultra 9 285 sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 5 245KF sits at the 91st. The recorded data shows no scenario where the Ultra 5 245KF outperforms the Ultra 9 285.