Introduction
Intel’s Core Ultra Desktop Processors (Series 2) are here, and we aren’t going to have a long introduction for this, instead, we have a lot of benchmarks, and some important performance you need to be aware of. You can check out our announcement article, which details all the architecture information, and a deep dive YouTube video we did on the presentation.
This launch review will focus on a review of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and Intel Core Ultra 5 245K desktop CPUs launching on October 24th, 2024. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K has a suggested eTail price of $589, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K has a suggested eTail price of $309.
The Intel Core Ultra 200S Desktop CPUs (Intel Core Ultra Desktop Processors (Series 2) are based on an Intel packaged design, with tiles (Compute/SOC/IO/GPU) produced by TSMC. The compute tile is TSMC N3b, the SOC and I/O die are TSMC N6, and the GPU die is TSMC N5, all packaged together based on Intel Foveros technology.
The P-Cores in the compute tile are based on Lion Cove and the E-Cores are based on Skymont architectures. While these are also found on the Lunar Lake mobile platform, the SOC/IO/GPU is closely related to the Meteor Lake platform, and thus follows through on Intel being able to hybridize the tiled architecture overall.
Intel Core Ultra 9 285K
The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is an 8 P-Core/16 E-Core CPU, and now the P-Cores do not support SMT/Hyperthreading. Therefore this gives us 24 cores or 24 Threads. It has an L3 cache of 36MB and an L2 cache of 40MB. It has an Intel Thermal Velocity Boost of 5.7GHz, and an Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 frequency of 5.6GHz. The P-Core Max frequency is 5.5GHz, and the Base frequency is 3.7GHz. The E-Core Max frequency is 4.6GHz and the Base frequency is 3.2GHz. The processor base power is 125W, but the maximum Turbo Power is 250W.
Intel Core Ultra 5 245K
The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K is a 6 P-Core/8 E-Core CPU which gives it 14 cores or 14 total Threads. This CPU has an L3 cache of 24MB and an L2 cache of 26MB. It lacks Intel Thermal Velocity Boost and Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0. Therefore, the P-Core Max Frequency is 5.2GHz, with the Base Frequency at 4.2GHz. The E-Core Max Frequency is 4.6GHz and the Base Frequency is 3.6GHz. The Processor Base power is also 150W, but the Maximum Turbo Power is 159W.
MSI MEG Z890 ACE
New motherboards and sockets are required for this CPU series, as it is now based on LGA1851. The chipset launching with the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is the Intel Z890 chipset, which is the flagship chipset, with the most PCIe lanes available. There will be configurations of motherboards based on this chipset, and for our launch review today, MSI supplied us with its top-tier MSI MEG Z890 ACE motherboard, with a retail MSRP of $659.99 at launch.
We will have a full review of this motherboard in the future, for now, just know that it supports every feature of the Intel Core Ultra 200S series, and has a ton of options for overclocking and memory overclocking. This motherboard is loaded with features and has a very easy-to-use MSI click-BIOS. Also, today, we have a full review of the MSI MPG Z890 CARBON WIFI, which will retail at launch for $499.99, so make sure to check that out as well. We will have more Z890 coverage coming, so stay tuned.
Discussion (19 replies)
Join Discussion →Those are some dissapointing results for gaming, kinda leaves me at an annoying point, 9800X3D is only an 8 core providing it launches when it's rumoured to (early november) rest is early next year and I don't realy want to go previous gen.
Also like I said in the other thread, the ultra 9 and 5 are already sold out at some outlets around here. intel still going strong (or no stock to speak off)
There are people who will buy Intel even when they have no logical reason to do so. I work with a guy like that. He won't buy anything else because of the reputation non-Intel CPU's had in the 1990's.
Gotta know supply to gauge demand...
My take: This is a transitional product that lays the ground work for future releases. This isn't remotely the first time Intel has done this. The Wilamette Socket 423 Pentium IV's were such a product. It introduced RAMBUS memory and they were often out performed by their Pentium III counterparts, especially Tualatin CPU's. The socket Northwood Socket 478 stuff was a lot better. The Prescott core CPU's were also kind of transitional as these were built with even deeper pipeline stages to ramp the clocks up even more. Their EM64T extensions were present on the core but weren't enabled (excluding one model) until the transition to LGA sockets.
Unfortunately, the only real benefit to these is that they shouldn't have any degradation and stability issues in games where as the 13th and 14th generation CPU's did prior to microcode updates and BIOS updates were created to mitigate them. Assuming your CPU wasn't degrading to start with.
Not competitive, high price, a short lived platform and Win 11 is a mess. Nothing ever works as intended at launch. What is wrong with these companies? Fumbling the ball at the 1-yd line seems to be the norm. Bush league overall...
@Brent_Justice - what I'm seeing about is that by decoupling the memory controller from the compute die, Intel has added latency to main memory access. Do we know if this is reflected in say AIDA64?
@Dan_D - looks like we're going to have to see if Intel can overcome the above latency issue the same way AMD did when they went to chiplets with Zen.
I think they can. How they would be able to mitigate this is unclear to me but this is the type of thing Intel is typically good at engineering their way through historically. Generally speaking, Intel's CPU's have not been effected by latency to the same degree as AMD's. AMD for one reason or another has always dealt with that to some degree. AMD's answer for the most part was simply to throw L3 cache at the problem which doesn't work in all scenarios.
Though throwing L3 cache at the problem is a simple fix, but its a costly one.
AMDs use of stacking for the L3 cache on a CCD, which in turn they can use for gaming SKUs as well as enterprise (which they originally created them for), is genius.
Imagine slow(er) Zen 3 and Zen 4 cores (both clockspeed and IPC vs. Alder/Raptor P-cores) not only outrunning them but also doing so at 1/2 the power draw for gaming.
Now imagine Intel P-cores backed up by enough L3 cache to make memory latency irrelevant.
I think Intel needs to copy AMD here (or emulate? imitate?) and find a way to get that cache in a die with broader market appeal (i.e. also usable in Xeons). Their chiplet setup should enable them to do so.
One thing that's been sticking in my mind with the Arrow Lake release is that this is the first time Intel has decoupled their memory controller from their compute dies since... Core 2? At least in the consumer space (so not talking about buffered DIMMs). AMD did with Zen 2 IIRC. Intel has been using IMCs since Lynnfield in the i7 870 from 2009, 15 years ago!
I'm not sure that this is even possible. I think there are probably scenarios where simply adding cache doesn't help.
Well, AMD had an integrated memory controller since the Athlon 64 days. However, Intel's Core 2 Duo/Core 2 Quad were the last CPU's to have an off-die memory controller. Though it was in the chipset at the time and not anywhere on the CPU itself.
I believe its two things:
1. Consumers buy products that suck on the promise that they will be fixed later
2. Development practices that involve the term: MVP (Minimum Viable Product)
Number 2 combined with number 1 just continuously lowers the bar for number 2.
Thanks, @Brent_Justice for the very detailed review of these CPUs and extra testing with both power modes. It's a shame that APO isn't supported for the games reviewed, especially since they are popular titles that users are likely to have in their libraries. I wonder if Intel will be able to provide updates later on which might improve those results. Really interesting how CB2077 has a prioritize P-core option that only further proved there are other potential gains to be had.
A lot to unpack with these and obviously Intel is experimenting with a number of strategies with them.
I will have more information in an upcoming review, but installing some DDR5 CUDIMMs 8400, but running at 8200 MT/s currently, AIDA64's Cache Mem latency result is 88ns this is at 8200MT/s CL40-50-50-128 CR2. I will have some memory comparison data in an upcoming article at 6400, 8200, 8400 and 8600 on this motherboard with this RAM kit, so stay tuned. But my first reaction is that this isn't bad latency, I think it was worse at the beginning of all this, but as new BIOS's have come out, latency has improved. MSI's fix notes state XMP and memory performance optimization with the new BIOS releases I'm using.
I really want an all P-Core option, an 8-Pcore only or 12-Pcore only CPU would be a great option for gaming.
I am NOT a fan of big.LITTLE / hybrid architecture on x86 desktops. Intel please give us P-core only options!
I would prefer only p-cores too, but due to the lack of HT would we not require like at least a 10 or12 core if you need 8 for games already.
I mean testing conditions is one thing, but a real everyday use system usually has more running in the background then just the bare minimum.