Core Ultra 9 285K vs Ryzen 9 9950X: We’re Dissapointed

See full bio

Shehryar Khan

Senior Editor and Content Writer:

• Lead the comparison and blog writing teams at Tech4Gamers.
• Oversee teams with a keen eye for detail and precision.
• Ensure hands-on writing, with benchmarks and testing as guiding principles.
• Guarantee the delivery of the best possible results in concise yet impactful tech tales.

See full bio

Pros And Cons

Comparison Table

Architectural Differences

1. Core Count: The Core Ultra 9 285K has 8 P-Cores and 16 E-Cores, while the Ryzen 9 9950X has only 16 P-Cores. Hyperthreading is gone with the new Intel processors, so the Core Ultra has 24 threads, while the Ryzen has 32 threads.
2. Clock Speed: Intel’s new high-end processor has a base clock of 3.2GHz on its E-Cores and a boost of 5.5GHz on its P-Cores. The AMD processor, however, ranges from 4.3GHz at base to a higher 5.7GHz boost.
3. Cache: The Ultra 9’s L3 cache is 36 megabytes instead of 64 megabytes, half the size of the Ryzen’s. However, the Intel processor’s L2 and L1 caches are significantly larger.
4. Process Node: Zen 5 processors use a 4nm processing node from TSMC, which is slightly less advanced than the 3nm processing nodes used on the new Intel chips.
5. TDP: Intel’s processor has a PL1 TDP of 125 watts, which is significantly lower than the 170 watts that the Ryzen sucks.

Intel has revamped its desktop processors with a rebrand focused on power efficiency over performance, which also comes with a branding change. Today, we’ll compare the new Core Ultra 285K vs Ryzen 9 9950X to see how Intel’s improvements stack up against the rest of the market!

Gaming Benchmarks – 1080p

We are glad to announce that we have started incorporating productivity benchmarks into our regular suite of games to give you the most information possible regarding a processor. All this testing has been done on a controlled test bench, the specs of which are displayed below.

Test Bench

• OS – Windows 11 
• CPU Cooler – Enermax LiqMaxFlo 360mm
• Graphics Card – GIGABYTE RTX 4090 Gaming OC 24G
• SSD – XPG Gammix S50 Lite
• Power Supply – be quiet! Dark Power Pro 13 1300W
• Mobo (AMD) – ASRock X870E Taichi Lite
• Mobo (Intel) – MSI MPG Z890 Edge Ti WiFi Review

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor

• Our comparison started with this game, which had the 285K on the backfoot with an average framerate of 157 FPS, which was around 1.3% higher than the 159 FPS we saw from the Ryzen.
• The lows had a more notable difference, with the Ryzen dipping to around 138 FPS in the hard-to-render scenes, while the Core Ultra 9 had lows of 131 FPS, 5.3% lower than its competition.

The Last Of Us Part 1

• Our testing of the PC port of The Last Of Us ran with an average of 194 FPS on the Intel chip, around 5.4% higher than the 184 FPS of the Ryzen 9 9950X.
• While testing the lows in this game, we saw the 9950X dipping as low as 119 FPS, while the Core Ultra 9 285K had lows of 138 FPS, causing a delta of around 16%.

Cyberpunk 2077

• Our test of Cyberpunk 2077 yielded the opposite results of our last test. The Ryzen 9 9950X had an average framerate of 160 FPS, which was 21% higher than the 132 FPS of the Core Ultra processor.
• The Ryzen was 19% ahead when it came to the lows, with the 9950X having a minimum framerate of 119 FPS, whereas the Core Ultra processor had a framerate of 100 FPS.

Assetto Corsa Competizione

• This popular racing sim also ran better on the Ryzen with an average framerate of 172 FPS, which was 8.8% higher than the 158 FPS of the Core Ultra 9 285K.
• The lows had the same story, with the Ryzen 9 9950X getting a framerate of 146 FPS as its minimum, while we saw a minimum of 137 FPS with the Core Ultra 9.

Remnant 2

• The Ryzen got another win with our test of Remnant 2, getting an average framerate of 123 FPS against the 120 FPS of the Core Ultra 9, leading to a 2.5% difference between the two.
• The Ryzen lost by 9.2% when it came to the 1% lows; however, it got a minimum of around 98 FPS compared to the 107 FPS that came from Intel’s chip.

Homeworld 3

• AMD also performed well in our test of this game, with an average framerate of 93 FPS, 31% higher than the Core Ultra 9’s 71 FPS.
• The difference was compounded in the lows, with the 9950X getting a framerate of 44 FPS while the 285K was about half the framerate, at around 23 FPS.

Starfield

• The Ryzen finally broke under the pressure, with the Core Ultra 9 being around 15% faster in our test of Starfield, with an average framerate of 129 FPS against AMD’s 112 FPS.
• We saw an 18% difference in Starfield in favour of the Core Ultra. The chip got a minimum framerate of 103 FPS, while the Ryzen held on to around 87 FPS.

Watch Dogs: Legion

• Finally, Watch Dogs: Legion ran better on the AMD processor with an average of 170 FPS against Intel’s 161 FPS, marking a difference of around 5.6%.
• The Ryzen processor also provided a Higher minimum framerate, around 121 FPS, which was 3.5% higher than the 117 FPS that the Core Ultra 9 285K supplied.

Productivity Benchmarks

Now comes the new addition to our benchmark suite. The following benchmarks were performed using the same setup used in the gaming benchmarks.

Cinebench R24

• The Core Ultra 9 285K had a score of 150 points in the single-threaded Cinebench benchmark, which was around 6.3% higher than the 141 points that the 9950X secured.
• In the multi-core test, the 285K had a score of 2522 points which was 7.5% higher than the 2342 points that the AMD chip secured, marking the Intel chip better in both categories.

Adobe Photoshop 2025

• In terms of real-world performance, the Pudget Systems benchmark on Photoshop ran much better on the Ryzen chip than on the Intel one.
• The 9950X had 11,915 points, whereas the Core Ultra 9 285K had 9,021 points, a difference of around 32% in favour of the Ryzen processor.

7-Zip

• Finally, compressing a 32-megabyte dictionary on 7-Zip gave the Ryzen 9 9950X 191 points, whereas the Core Ultra 9 scored 195 points, giving the chip a 2% advantage.
• Decompression was a completely different story. The Core Ultra 9 285K scored 209 points in our testing, whereas the Ryzen was hovering around 274 points, accounting for a 31% difference in performance.

Overall Performance

Average Framerate

Our testing only found an average difference of 4.54% in games, leaning in favour of the Ryzen. However, there were huge differences when zooming in, like the 21% that the Ryzen gained in Cyberpunk 2077.

1% Lows

Our study of the 1% lows showed an even smaller difference of only 1.9% because the Core Ultra 9 was surprisingly ahead in a few games over the Ryzen. Its biggest victory here was in Starfield, with a win of around 18.4%, while AMD’s biggest win was in Homeworld 3, with almost double the performance.

Productivity

Regarding productivity, we saw that the Core Ultra did better in the Cinebench R24 tests but not very well in the real-world applications of Cinebench and 7-Zip. We measured an average advantage of over 22% for the Ryzen processor.

Power

According to Intel, this chip’s debut feature was its low power consumption, but AMD surpassed them even here. The Core Ultra took around 15% more power than its AMD counterpart, which is a complete arrow in the foot, knowing that it also had worse performance.

Price 

With the current AMD Ryzen 9 9950X prices, there is virtually no difference between what it wants from consumers versus the Core Ultra 9 285K. These prices are subject to change, but we expect both processors to be discounted at a similar rate.

What We Recommend

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K: Based on our tests thus far, it’s difficult to find a solid reason to prefer this over the Ryzen. It has worse gaming performance, worse power consumption, and worse productivity. 

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X: Though not an excellent chip in its own right, the AMD Ryzen won all our tests almost without fail. The only downside we saw with this chip was the lower 1% lows in some games and the lower benchmark performance in Cinebench.

After testing these chips thoroughly, it is obvious who the winner is in this comparison. However, Intel’s higher Cinebench score may mean it has more raw performance and is held back by optimization, but we will have to wait and see.

Shehryar Khan

[Comparisons Expert]

Shehryar Khan, a seasoned PC hardware expert, brings over three years of extensive experience and a deep passion for the world of technology. With a love for building PCs and a genuine enthusiasm for exploring the latest advancements in components, his expertise shines through his work and dedication towards this field. Currently, Shehryar is rocking a custom loop setup for his built.

Get In Touch: shehryar@old.tech4gamers.com