The Intel Core Ultra 200S series or Arrow Lake processors are here. And we've seen plenty of pre-launch benchmarks showcasing the 285K making quick work of the Ryzen 9 9950X. That said, different test bench specifications will result in varying outputs, but if it is truly better than the 9950X, the difference won't be huge. 

We’ve tested and reviewed the Intel Ultra 285K and we also put the Ryzen 9 9950X through its paces too, so we’re in a good place to tell you which one you should go for. Each processor has its merits, mind you, and it all comes down to what’s most important to you in your build. Here, we’ll break down the key differences, so you can make an informed decision.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

Cores

24

Threads

24

Boost clock speed

5.7GHz

Base clock speed

3.7GHz P-cores/3.2GHz E-cores

L3 Cache

36MB

TDP

125W base/250W max

Platform

LGA 1851 (Arrow Lake)

Shop on Amazon

CHECK PRICE

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X

Cores

16

Threads

32

Boost clock speed

5.7 GHz

Base clock speed

4.3 GHz

L3 Cache

64 MB

TDP

170 W

Platform

AMD Socket AM5

Shop on Amazon

CHECK PRICE

Image source: PC Guide

Ryzen 9 9950X (Image source: PC Guide)

Previous

Next

1 of 2

Previous

Next

Spec comparison

To see the hardware difference between the two processors, we've listed their specifications below.

As you can see, there is a substantial difference between these processors, but that isn't surprising as two different companies make them with their protocols. However, to see the difference on a hardware level, we'll compare the TDP, CPU processes, architecture, and clock speeds. 

Architecture and CPU processes

The first and primary difference is that the 285K is based on Intel's latest Arrow Lake architecture, while the 9950X is based on the Zen 5 architecture. This means they are fundamentally different, and the CPU process technology also varies.

The Ryzen 9 9950X uses 4nm process technology, which gives it a transistor count of 16,630 million. The smaller the processes, the more transistors can be fit on the CPU die, giving it better and more efficient performance. As for the 285K, the transistor count is unknown, but it uses 3nm process technology, meaning it should have a higher transistor count and better efficiency. 

That said, when we tested this CPU, it didn't share the overheating problems its predecessors faced. During Furmark 2, it reached a max temperature of 84°C, which is well under the 100°C operating limit. So, its smaller CPU process technology is making a difference, as it consumes less power and is more efficient. The thermal output is also low. 

TDP

The 9950X has a 170W TDP, while the 285K has a base TDP of 125W that can reach up to 250W, considerably higher than the 9950X. Both processors can be overclocked, meaning the TDP can fluctuate depending on how much you've overclocked it. 

When we tested the 9950X for our review and enabled PBO, the CPU cooler couldn't keep up with it, and the same might be the case if you overclock the 285K. It is important to keep these high-end components running, as they can thermal throttle, reducing their performance. 

Clock speeds

When it comes to clock speeds, the 9950X and 285K share the same boost clock speed of 5.7GHz. Where they vary are the base clock speeds because Intel uses big.little hybrid design uses performance and efficient cores, while AMD doesn't have the cores divided in such a manner. 

What this means is that the P- and E-core have different base clock speeds. E-cores can operate at a minimum of 3.2 GHz, while P-core has a frequency of 3.7 GHz. On the other hand, the 9950X has a 4.3 GHz base clock speed, meaning it can process 0.6 billion instructions more than the 285K, which should give it a significant advantage. 

However, the 285K did have slightly better multi-core performance than the 9950X, which could be courtesy of the smaller CPU process technology and similar boost clock speeds. 

Is it worth choosing the 285K over the 9950X? 

Now, to answer the main question: If you were on the fence, waiting for the Arrow Lake processors to release and seeing whether you should go for Team Blue or Red's flagship, which one is better? To paint a clear picture, I'll leverage our in-house CPU reviews for the Core Ultra 9 285K and the Ryzen 9 9950X and help you understand which processor is good in which use case. 

Core Ultra 9 285K vs Ryzen 9 9950X: Synthetic performance 

We check the synthetic performance of the processors we review by running the industry suite of benchmark software, such as CPU-Z, Cinebench, and Geekbench 6. The pre-release Geekbench results show that the Core Ultra 9 285K had better single—and multi-core performance than the 9950X. 

Well, that is partially true because while the 285K has better multi-core performance, its single-core results didn't paint the same picture. 

As you can see in the comparison above, the 285K is ahead of the 9950X by varying degrees, but I think we'll all agree that it has multi-core results and would be the CPU to go for if that is what you're looking for. 

However, when we move to single-core results, the difference in performance is greater than that in multi-core performance results. We see the 9950X leading by a significant margin, and the 285K is nowhere close to it. That said, it also aligns with its dominating gaming performance, which we'll dive into next. To check a processor’s in-game performance, its single-core performance is looked at, as games generally don't use multiple cores. 

Core Ultra 9 285K vs Ryzen 9 9950X: Gaming performance 

As for the gaming performance of these processors, we only have one game. Cyberpunk 2077 was run using both CPUs to use as a comparison. However, since it is a demanding title, it should provide a good insight. 

We ran Cyberpunk 2077 at 1080p low settings to make it more CPU-intensive. We paired both processors with the RTX 4070 Ti Super, and the 285K managed an average FPS of 216 while the 9950X churned out 319 FPS, which is 103 FPS. 

The difference in FPS is huge, and it certainly makes the 9950X a better pick if you're looking for a gaming processor outside of the X3D lineup. That said, the 1% low was different, as they came around for 165 and 128 FPS for the 285K and 9950X, respectively. However, the average FPS difference is too huge to ignore, so the 9950X is the better pick. That said, it isn't surprising since Intel also admitted the 285K is slower in gaming than the 14900K, so it seems like the 285K isn't cut out for gaming, and with the launch of the 9800X3D arriving on 7th November, it'll further fall down the ranks. 

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and Ryzen 9 9950X price difference 

According to Camelcamelcamel, the Ryzen 9 9950X costs $708.98, while the 285K is $629 on Newegg. That said, you'll also need to invest in a new Z890 motherboard, which, again, according to camelcamelcamel, can cost anywhere from $999.99 to $299.99. 

So, the added cost comes around to $1628.99 for an Intel build, and that doesn't mean the Ryzen 9000 build would be pocket-friendly, but the gaming and synthetic performance would make it a better choice overall. 

Which processor should you get? 

The answer to this question depends on your usage and budget. Neither processor is cheap, and combined with the new motherboards you'll have to get, it raises the price even more. If you already have an AM5 motherboard, then it’s a no-brainer that you should get the Ryzen 9 9950X, as the single-core performance is better, there is a minimal difference in multi-core performance, and the gaming results were outstanding. 

However, if you're on the LGA 1700 platform and want to move to the new LGA 1851 or AM5 socket, it wouldn't make much sense to invest in the 285K. The performance difference between the 14900K and 285K is minimal and doesn't warrant an upgrade. A jump from LGA 1700 to AM5 would make more sense in the short and long term. 

If you plan on getting the Zen 5 powerhouse and want to complete your build, we've got you covered with the best GPU, motherboard, CPU cooler, PSU, and RAM for the Ryzen 9 9950X.

About the Author

Ussamah Mehmood

Ussamah works as a content writer and editor at BGFG. He is experienced in tech, hardware, gaming, and marketing.