Skip to content
Specdex
Compare now
Core Ultra 9 285K — Arrow Lake · 24C · 5.7 GHz · LGA1851
Intel

Core Ultra 9 285K

Arrow Lake · 24C · 5.7 GHz · LGA1851

89
/ 100
From $589
VS
Intel Core Ultra 9 395K wins by 4
Intel Core Ultra 9 395K — Panther Lake · 26C · 6.0 GHz
Intel

Intel Core Ultra 9 395K

Panther Lake · 26C · 6.0 GHz

93
/ 100
From $649
Specdex verdict

Intel Core Ultra 9 395K takes it — here’s why.

In our weighted Specdex score, Core Ultra 9 285K lands at 89 and Intel Core Ultra 9 395K at 93. That puts Intel Core Ultra 9 395K ahead by 4 points — a narrow margin driven mostly by its strengths in the categories below.

Pick Core Ultra 9 285K if…

  • Far more efficient than 14900K
  • Strong multi-thread productivity
  • New LGA1851 platform with DDR5-6400

Pick Intel Core Ultra 9 395K if…

  • Latest generation silicon
  • Improved perf-per-watt
  • Full modern feature set
Share this comparison: Share to Reddit X / Twitter

Winner by scenario

Derived from the sub-score breakdown · not a separate test

Gaming

Intel Core Ultra 9 395K

Frame-rate-bound workloads — favours cache and single-thread speed

Intel Core Ultra 9 395K leads on gaming (94 vs 85).

Creators & productivity

Tie

Rendering, compilation, heavy multitasking — favours core count

Effectively tied — neither pulls a 2-point weighted lead.

Power efficiency

Core Ultra 9 285K

Performance per watt — thermals, PSU headroom, electricity cost

Core Ultra 9 285K leads on efficiency (90 vs 86).

Value for money

Tie

Specdex score per dollar at MSRP

Effectively tied — similar score-per-dollar at MSRP.

Core Ultra 9 285K 89
vs
93 Intel Core Ultra 9 395K

Score breakdown

Core Ultra 9 285K
89
single 92
multi 94
gaming 85
efficiency 90
Intel Core Ultra 9 395K
93
single 95
multi 93
gaming 94
efficiency 86

Specs side-by-side

Core Ultra 9 285K versus Intel Core Ultra 9 395K — full spec comparison
Spec Core Ultra 9 285K Intel Core Ultra 9 395K
Cores
24 (8P + 16E)
26 (8P+16E+2LP)
Threads
24
26
Base clock
3.7 GHz
Boost clock
5.7 GHz
L3 cache
36 MB
TDP
125 W (PL1) / 250 W (PL2)
Socket
LGA1851
LGA1851
Process
TSMC N3B
iGPU
Intel Graphics (Xe-LPG, 4 Xe cores @ 2.0 GHz)
NPU
13 TOPS
Memory
DDR5-6400
Architecture
Panther Lake
Release year
2025

Core Ultra 9 285K

Pros
  • +Far more efficient than 14900K
  • +Strong multi-thread productivity
  • +New LGA1851 platform with DDR5-6400
Cons
  • Gaming regresses vs 14900K in some titles
  • No hyper-threading (24 threads from 24 cores)
  • 13 TOPS NPU is modest

Intel Core Ultra 9 395K

Pros
  • +Latest generation silicon
  • +Improved perf-per-watt
  • +Full modern feature set
Cons
  • Premium pricing
  • Requires up-to-date platform
  • Initial stock scarcity likely

FAQ: Core Ultra 9 285K vs Intel Core Ultra 9 395K

Which is better, Core Ultra 9 285K or Intel Core Ultra 9 395K? +

Intel Core Ultra 9 395K scores 93 on our weighted rubric — ahead by 4. Your best pick depends on the sub-scores above.

Is Core Ultra 9 285K worth the price? +

At $589, Core Ultra 9 285K delivers a Specdex score of 89 — strongest in multi.

Is Intel Core Ultra 9 395K worth the price? +

At $649, Intel Core Ultra 9 395K delivers a Specdex score of 93 — strongest in single.

Does Core Ultra 9 285K or Intel Core Ultra 9 395K last longer? +

Based on our long-term update and support ratings, both ship with multi-year support. Battery and reliability scores are visible in the breakdown above.

Which is better for gaming, Core Ultra 9 285K or Intel Core Ultra 9 395K? +

Intel Core Ultra 9 395K — leads on gaming (94 vs 85). Frame-rate-bound workloads — favours cache and single-thread speed.

Which is better for power efficiency, Core Ultra 9 285K or Intel Core Ultra 9 395K? +

Core Ultra 9 285K — leads on efficiency (90 vs 86). Performance per watt — thermals, PSU headroom, electricity cost.