Core i9 14900KS vs Core Ultra 9 285K
Head-to-head specifications
| Metric | Core i9 14900KS | Core Ultra 9 285K | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cinebench 2024 single-core | 144 | 141 | +2.1% |
| Cinebench 2024 multi-core | 2,443 | 2,261 | +8.0% |
| Cores | 24 (8P+16E) | 24 (8P+16E) | — |
| TDP (base W) | 150 | 125 | — |
| L3 cache (MB) | 36 | 36 | — |
| PassMark CPU Mark | 60,019 | 67,256 | -10.8% |
| Street price (USD) | $802 | $557 | +43.9% |
- Core i9 14900KS is faster than Core Ultra 9 285K by 2.1% in single-core and faster by 8.0% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
- Core Ultra 9 285K draws less power (125W vs 150W base TDP).
Verdict: Core i9 14900KS or Core Ultra 9 285K?
Core i9 14900KS advantages
- Multi-core speed (+7%)
Core Ultra 9 285K advantages
- Power efficiency (+17%)
- Affordability (+31%)
Which should you choose?
- Choose the Core i9 14900KS if you render video, compile code or run heavy multitasking.
- Choose the Core Ultra 9 285K if you want a cooler, quieter and more power-efficient build.
Value for money
Core Ultra 9 285K delivers more performance per dollar, making it the better value of the two at their listed prices.
Core i9 14900KS vs Core Ultra 9 285K: which should you choose?
Core i9 14900KS — 24-core Intel processor (8P+16E) scoring 144 single-core and 2443 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 150 W TDP and 36 MB L3 cache.
Core Ultra 9 285K — 24-core Intel processor (8P+16E) scoring 141 single-core and 2261 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 125 W TDP and 36 MB L3 cache.
Core i9 14900KS vs Core Ultra 9 285K: Core i9 14900KS leads in multi-core performance. Core i9 14900KS is faster than Core Ultra 9 285K by 2.1% in single-core and faster by 8.0% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra 9 285K draws less power (125W vs 150W base TDP).
Gaming and single-threaded work
Games and everyday responsiveness lean on single-core speed. The Core i9 14900KS leads there with a single-core score of 144 versus 141, so it is the marginally better pick for high-refresh gaming — though at typical resolutions the GPU usually decides frame rates.
Content creation and multitasking
For rendering, compilation, video export and other all-core workloads, the Core i9 14900KS is stronger, posting 2,443 multi-core against 2,261 in Cinebench 2024. Its 24 cores (8 performance + 16 efficiency) give it real headroom for heavy parallel jobs.
Power and platform
The Core Ultra 9 285K is the more efficient chip at 125 W versus 150 W, which means less heat, quieter cooling and lower running costs under sustained load.
The verdict
Both are credible choices in the processor comparison space; the specification table above lays out every metric so you can weigh the trade-offs that matter to you. Pick the one whose strengths line up with how you will actually use it.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Core i9 14900KS better than the Core Ultra 9 285K?
These two are closely matched — the right pick comes down to which specific strengths you value and the price you actually pay. Core i9 14900KS is faster than Core Ultra 9 285K by 2.1% in single-core and faster by 8.0% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
What is the main difference between the Core i9 14900KS and the Core Ultra 9 285K?
Core i9 14900KS is faster than Core Ultra 9 285K by 2.1% in single-core and faster by 8.0% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra 9 285K draws less power (125W vs 150W base TDP).
Which is better value?
Core Ultra 9 285K delivers more performance per dollar, making it the better value of the two at their listed prices.
Which should I choose?
Choose the Core i9 14900KS if you render video, compile code or run heavy multitasking. Choose the Core Ultra 9 285K if you want a cooler, quieter and more power-efficient build.
Methodology
Processors are compared on Cinebench 2024 single-core and multi-core scores from published leaderboard results, alongside core configuration (performance + efficiency cores), base TDP, L3 cache, PassMark CPU Mark, 1080p gaming scores and street pricing where measured. Cinebench reflects rendering-style workloads; gaming performance depends heavily on the GPU and the specific title, so treat single-core standing as directional. Figures reflect the leaderboard snapshot on the page date.