Intel has been on the back foot for a couple of years now, with AMD dominating the CPU market. While Intel did dip into the GPU market, it had a 0% market share, with Nvidia and AMD taking the lead, the former comfortably so. And to make matters worse, the arrival of 13th- and 14th-generation instability issues even prompted Gamers Nexus not to recommend Intel CPUs.
That said, Intel got a lifeline due to AMD’s somewhat subpar Ryzen 9000 launch, with the Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X performing well below what the consumer base was expecting. AMD had the perfect opportunity to put the final nail in the coffin for Intel but dropped the ball.
AMD’s claim during their presentation that the new processors would be greatly more powerful than the previous generation further fueled the fire, but it’s safe to say that that wasn’t the case. So, once again, the ball is in Intel’s court, and if they play their cards right, the odds are stacked in Intel’s favor to bounce back against AMD – at least in the CPU department.
Intel is also wisely making decisions regarding the upcoming 15th-generation Arrow Lake processors, playing it safe to avoid repeating the crisis the previous generations faced. However, we all know that playing it safe isn’t going to cut it. If Intel wants to take the crown back from AMD, they’ll have to take the offensive, and this is where the pre-launch benchmarks come in.
Before you continue
The Geekbench and V-Ray benchmark databases don’t have the results for Intel Core Ultra 5 265K and 265KF. Since they haven’t been tested, we couldn’t gauge the performance difference between the entry-level 15th-generation, 14th-generation, and Ryzen 9000 processors.
Early Intel Arrow Lake-S processor benchmarks
It would seem that Intel is serious about firing back at AMD, as the benchmark results of the 15th-generation processors are impressive. The soon-to-be flagship CPU, Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, outperforms the 14900K and 14900KF across different benchmarks and even the Ryzen 9 9950X.
However, it isn’t all one-sided, as benchmark results are affected by many variables. For example, if you use DDR5 4600 MHz memory in one test and 8000 MHz memory in another, the latter’s performance will be better; like this, every little component can change the outcome.
The 9950X outperformed the Core Ultra 9 285K in the V-Ray 6 benchmark, which tests a processor’s ability to render. In contrast, Geekbench uses practical scenarios and multiple datasets to put the CPUs through different levels of stress and gauge their single- and multi-core performance.
So, we can see that the flagship Arrow Lake processor can do toe-to-toe with the heavy hitters of the previous generation and the competition. I’d like to shed some light on the performance of mid-range and entry-level processors. It isn’t all about what the most powerful CPU in the generation can do, as not everyone can afford that; the mid-range and entry-level processors sort of complete the package as they cater to PC builders at every level.
At mid-range, we have the Core Ultra 7 265K and the 265KF, which have to compete against the Ryzen 7 9700X and the Intel Core i7 14700K. As for the entry-level chips, Core Ultra 5 245K and 245KF, their competition is the Ryzen 5 9600X and the Intel Core i5 14600K. We’ll take a look at their Geekbench and V-Ray results to see how they fare against each other. This should give us an idea about the overall performance of Intel’s 15th-generation processors and whether they’ll be able to compete with Zen 5 CPUs or not.
Geekbench results for 265K/265KF and 9700X
According to Geekbench, the Core Ultra 7 265K and 265KF have single- and multi-core scores of 3,186 and 19,799 and 3,219 and 19,433, respectively. The Ryzen 7 9700X has a maximum Geekbench score of 3,539 and 18,878, respectively, without PBO, which we’ll also discuss.
At first glance, we can see that the 9700X clearly has the better single-core performance, but in multi-core, the 265K has the lead, meaning it should be better for heavy workloads. However, the 9700X’s performance is also limited by its 65W TDP, which you can boost to 105W if you have an MSI motherboard or by updating your BIOS.
That being said, when we factor in PBO, which is AMD’s Precision Boost Overdrive, the results favor the 9700X more. It already had better single-core performance, but with the power plan set to ultimate performance and a memory frequency of 5739 MHz, the PBO results for the 9700X were 3,495 for single-core and 19,457 for multi-core.
Ryzen 7 9700X Geekbench score with PBO
Ryzen 7 9700X Geekbench score
Intel Core Ultra 7 265K Geekbench score
Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF Geekbench score
The single-core score took a slight dip, but the multi-core performance saw a huge increase and almost bridged the gap, being just a couple of points shy of the Core Ultra 7 265K’s multi-core score. So, I’d like to bring your attention back to what I said about the components and settings making a difference in benchmark results. However, both these processors seem to be able to compete nearly at the same level, with the 9700X needing a little software help.
V-Ray results for 265KF and 9700X
The V-Ray 6 benchmark database doesn’t have the Core Ultra 7 265K results, so we’ll compare the 265KF against the 9700X. The Core Ultra 265KF dominates the 9700X in V-Ray with a maximum score of 33,270 against the latter’s 25,337. So, when it comes to rendering, the 265KF should be the better option, but since this is a pre-launch benchmark, it would be better not to pass judgment before testing is conducted on a broader scale.
Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF V-Ray score
Ryzen 7 9700X V-Ray score
Geekbench results for 265K/265KF and 14700K
We’re using the same Geekbench results for the 265K and 265KF as above. For the 14700K, we used the latest available benchmark, which was done on September 22nd on a ROG STRIX Z790-F Gaming WiFi II motherboard paired with 5500 MHz RAM. The single- and multi-core scores were 3,058 and 2,1466, respectively.
So, this time around, we see the 265K/265KF with dominating single-core performance, while the 14700K has a significantly better multi-core performance.
Intel Core 7 14700K Geekbench score
Intel Core Ultra 7 265K Geekbench score
Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF Geekbench score
So, it would seem that the results aren’t as one-sided as we’ve seen with the Core Ultra 285K, and the competition is tough for the mid-range processors.
V-Ray results for 265KF and 14700K/14700KF
We’re in the same boat with the 265K V-Ray benchmark results, but we have results for 14700K and 14700KF, so we can compare the K and KF variants.
The 265K managed a maximum score of 33,270, which was slightly lower than the 14700K’s 34,496 points. The 14700KF outperformed the 265K massively, scoring 40,254. So, it isn’t as black and white as one would like because each CPU has pros and cons.
The Core Ultra 7 265K has good performance, and it seems like Intel is also focusing on efficiency, as the leak specs for Arrow Lake processors list the 265K and 265KF with a 125 TDP.
That said, it’s the same for the 14700K and 14700KF, but they have a max TDP of 253W, which could be the reason the 14700KF has an overwhelming performance. That said, we don’t know the max TDP of the Core Ultra 7 265K or 265KF, but if they also support Intel Turbo Boost Max technology, the outcome could be more neck and neck than we think.
Final word
The main takeaway from all this is that Intel seems to be positioning itself to unload efficient and powerful processors that could perform on par, if not better, than Ryzen 9000 processors. Basically, do what AMD wanted to do but failed to do so. Aggressive pricing is another aspect that would bring the favor back to Intel. If they can drop the cost, they have the technology to compete with AMD and come out victorious, as they are using a 2nm CPU process against AMD’s less efficient 4nm CPU process.
All in all, Q4 of 2024 is going to be an exciting time for all PC hardware enthusiasts. We could be gearing up for another upset, but more competition means better products and deals for the users, so it’s a win-win situation.
