Which is better for my build: Intel core ultra 9 285K vs i9 14900K
Posted by Alone_Abbreviations1@reddit | buildapc | View on Reddit | 62 comments
TL;DR - I have maybe 20 days to return the processor I bought for a better one, and I need help choosing between Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs Core i9 14900K for gaming, streaming, photo/video editing, drafting, rendering still images and animations (architect by day/gamer by night, if my needs make a difference)
The rest of my build is as follows: Case - Lian Li O11 Dynamic EVO RGB MBD - Gigabyte Aorus Z890 Elite WiFi7 ICE CPU - Intel Core Ultra 7 (265K) GPU - NVidia GeForce RTX 4070 Super (Asus Dual) RAM - G.Skill Trident Royal 64GB (4x16GB) DDR5, 7200 MT/s AIO - Lian Li Galahad Trinity 360mm FAN - Lian Li UniFan TL LCD (Reverse Blade)(6x120mm) PSU - Lian Li Edge 1300W Platinum SSD - 1x500GB (OS), 2x2TB (Games, Projects) HDD - 1x1TB (Docs, Files, Photos, Misc)
For context: I recently started my PC building journey when I got a a bit of extra income for the holidays. I bought a new PC case and decided to try case-swapping my Alienware Aurora R11… yeah, that didn’t go well. I found out the hard way that Alienware merged the front panel connector with one of their usb connections. That meant I needed a new motherboard. I decided to bite the bullet and took this opportunity to upgrade.
I like Intel, and that’s what I’m familiar with, so I was going to build with an i9 14900K, but let someone talk me into an ultra 5 over some issues with intel’s recent chips (they didn’t have an ultra 9 at the time)… I was told the performance difference between the ultra 5 and i9 14 series wouldn’t be that much worse and they really up-sold the power efficiency. I was rushing because I was out of a PC and needed one bad, so I didn’t get to do too much research beyond basic specs. I bought the parts listed above (the GPU and storage drives I carried over from my old rig). Now, the shop told me I have 30 days to use and return/exchange the parts if I’m not happy with them, for any reason as long as I didn’t break them. I don’t mind exchanging the motherboard if it means I get the better cpu. Honestly, I’ve been reconsidering the AIO and fans as well, but I digress).
Now that I’ve had time to do more homework, I’m finding it hard to pick a processor. It seems that some sources say the difference between the ultra 9 285K and i9 14900K is huge and others seem to say it’s minor. I’ve seen enough charts and tables to make my head spin. I admit that I don’t know much about CPU overclocking, threads, and cores, so I’m here asking for help.
Kees_Gort@reddit
The 14900k still disintegrates on a regular basis. Do you want to take that risk? I'd go with the 285K because of that. The 285k is also better for productivity, just slightly weaker in gaming.
Piotr_Barcz@reddit
Doesn't with the microcode updates, stop scaring people 😂
Separate-Director-68@reddit
So here's the thing, every motherboard manufacturer does a different implementation, and Gigabyte chose to go the "better safe than sorry" path on Intel default, nerfing gaming performance by 10%. By going with a 13th or 14th gen Intel chip with default settings, you are consenting to getting 90% of what you paid for, tops. https://wccftech.com/gigabyte-baseline-gaming-stability-bios-option-turns-intel-14th-13th-gen-core-i9-cpus-into-core-i7-multi-thread-gaming-performance-loss/
Piotr_Barcz@reddit
Who uses Gigabyte anyway? I'm an Asrock man XD
Wonderful_Gap1374@reddit
I don’t know if you were here last year when they said the same thing.
You might be right and you might be wrong, but no one really knows yet.
Piotr_Barcz@reddit
I mean, so far people haven't had issues, and it's been months. Also people who overclock their chips I think are asking for it 😂
Alone_Abbreviations1@reddit (OP)
From what I can find, this degradation appears to be caused by heavy overclocking loads and should have been fixed by a microcode update Intel has already put out. I also saw that Intel pointed out some motherboard manufacturers shipping boards with settings not recommended by Intel as a potential culprit (which some motherboard manufacturers have seemingly addressed).
It’s definitely disconcerting…
Are users still having issues after all that? And while cpu issues out of the box/losing the lottery on a good chip sucks, wouldn’t Intel honor their manufacturer’s warranty and replace a bad chip with a good one?
Separate-Director-68@reddit
Intel does honor their warranty, but only if you're the original buyer- bought the CPU new. They do not honor it if you're a second-hand owner. Also, some OEM's are not honoring Intel's extended 2 year warranty, so pre-built users are SOL.
The Intel microcode update is also prone to causing issues in various ways. One of my friends has an ROG Z790 Maximus board, and after updating the BIOS, his previously functional Gigabyte NVMe SSD got wiped and became inaccessible, but still recognized with 0 GB. Sent in the NVMe for RMA, and they replaced it within warranty, no charge.
Kees_Gort@reddit
I recently saw some reports (I believe on Reddit) of people suffering degradation even with the micro code fix. I personally wouldn't take the risk tbh. And that fix takes away a lot of performance from the 14900K too.
I guess you'd get your warranty back if it happens, but it also sounds like a shitty hassle tbh.
Alone_Abbreviations1@reddit (OP)
I agree that the hassle of removing the processor after installation and running it, only to have to ship it out (likely at cost to me) and have to wait days or even weeks without a functioning PC for the manufacturer to receive, test, and ship me a new one if needed would be devastating.
That gamble part of what’s got me on the fence about the 14th gen… the guy at the shop told me 1-in-10 chips have this issue, but I don’t know that I believe such a round number without a source. Even if true, 10% defective sounds bad, and I’m not much of a gambler.
DapperHat@reddit
6 months ago Level1Techs asked contacts in Dell and Lenovo and they reported a failure rate of 10-25%, and given the quality of the average OEM motherboard, they would be delivering less power and clocked lower than a high end consumer motherboard.
They also have a section on server usage of these CPUs on W680 boards, where they mention that both ASUS and Supermicro boards appear to be experiencing instability on 50% of the CPUs.
Bluedot55@reddit
That's what people initially thought, that it was all linked to crazy power limits and OCing. But there were a handful of articles talking about how even game server companies, who would use those in server boards with very restrictive power limits, excessive cooling, and stock settings, were getting them burning out constantly. Like, expect most to fail under a year level constantly. The issue was more tied with what loads it was run under, rather then settings.
The fixes seemed to have helped, but again, how much trust can you put in the fixes when they took so long to acknowledge the issue in the first place.
The root cause was that it would often over shoot the needed voltage for high single core speeds during extremely short spikes, which damaged the chip. This then made it ask for a bit more voltage, which then overshot even higher, causing more damage, in a process that repeated until it couldn't ask for enough voltage to be stable.
Alone_Abbreviations1@reddit (OP)
Thank you for explaining this issue in a comprehensive and concise way.
PoL0@reddit
surprised this isn't higher
Kees_Gort@reddit
Surprised me too. I guess most people here just hate the 285K intensely because it has relatively weak gaming performance. But for productivity it's supposed to be great. Not that I could afford it hehe.
TryingHard1994@reddit
Im even happy with my 285k for gaming, playing all triple A titles Well, I am playing at 4k ultra tho so lots of preasure being taken by my 4080 super
Separate-Director-68@reddit
Just stick with what you already have. The i9-14900K is technically better for gaming, but you will have to run some custom settings that nerfs performance even with the microcode update to be on the safe side, so it comes out in the wash.
Acrobatic-Might2611@reddit
Honestly you need to reconsider amd. Its better than both 14th gen and core ultra. There is nothing to be familiar with
wiseude@reddit
I was considering getting a 9800X3D to switch from my 9900k but got put off by how many threads about 9800X3D and stuttering there are.Not even joking look up 9800X3D and stutter in r/amdhelp.
Chemical_Knowledge64@reddit
Are current gen amd chips any better than current intel chips at productivity workloads? If they are then the choice is clear as day. If not then he has to choose intel for productivity reasons, and has to choose between 14th gen i9 or core ultra 285. And last I checked for both cpus and gpus amd are behind on the productivity front, even if the gap is narrowing.
Scarabesque@reddit
Specifically for video editing Intel still has an edge due to quicksync, but this is only true if you work with video codecs not supported by your gpu. I forgot which, bit there are a few basically only Intel quicksync sports natively.
Technically also an advantage when encoding, it's mostly for playback where it can shine. If op works with Nvidia supported codecs, that will handle playback better anyway.
I'm sure beyond that there are other niche advantages for Intel, as I'm sure there are for AMD... For most use cases is say AMD's 9950X had an edge overal.
Is personally avoid 13th and 14th gen still, though they can be great value of you take Intel's word for it being fixed.
Specialist_Angle_548@reddit
9800X3D
OriginTruther@reddit
That's so silly, the 9800x3d isn't a good productivity card at all.
M3dicayne@reddit
Card? It's a CPU.
thebootlick@reddit
Dude must have not seen zip decompression, or geomean ratings for the AMD chips. lol.
RunnerLuke357@reddit
How much time do you spend unzipping files? Let's be realistic.
thebootlick@reddit
Decompression is a good measure of single threaded CPU performance, which most video/photo editing, and cad processes will use.
PoL0@reddit
saying it isn't good at productivity is laughable. there are better CPUs at productivity workloads but that doesn't mean "it isn't good".
what isn't good is the comment you're answering to. op asked for advice on Intel platform specifically, and given that gaming seems to be somehow an accessory use case, the 9800x3d isn't the best fit.
OriginTruther@reddit
No but they asked about 2 specific cpus and the 9800x3d clearly isn't competitive for productivity, especially at $600+. If i were going to suggest an amd equivalent, probably the upcoming 9950x3d might be a best of both worlds kind of card. Will wait and see it's benchmarks.
Temporary_Slide_3477@reddit
Userbenchmark may be correct. You didn't even answer the question you just shilled per usual.
thebootlick@reddit
He did answer the question; arrow lake is shit and 14th gen’s fry themselves.
“I’m familiar with intel” isn’t a good enough excuse to be buying an intel gaming machine in 2025.
Also; have you even seen the decompression or geomean scores for the 9800? It’s a better processor than the 14900. The 3d v cache puts in work for photo and video editing. Not to mention how inefficient the intel processors are.
Temporary_Slide_3477@reddit
Name checks out, you should add AMD to that.
"Decompression"? For what? Has nothing to do with media editing, who unzips files all day?
thebootlick@reddit
You are absolutely fucking dense, all software that an architect would use is single or lightly threaded; do you know anything about media editing?
thebootlick@reddit
He did answer the question; arrow lake is shit and 14th gen’s fry themselves.
“I’m familiar with intel” isn’t a good enough excuse to be buying an intel gaming machine in 2025. Also; what about OPs post made you assume they do more than game?
Even if they did - have you seen the decompression or geomean scores for the 9800?
Specialist_Angle_548@reddit
Not really I came from the 13900K and 14900KS
Mikaeo@reddit
Not a valid option.
Fizz4President@reddit
neither, get a 9800X3D
Mysterious_Tart3377@reddit
Don't buy 13th and 14th gen cpus. I lost a 14700k.
The_soulprophet@reddit
No warranty?
Mysterious_Tart3377@reddit
It was tray.
The_soulprophet@reddit
That was a gamble…
Mysterious_Tart3377@reddit
It isn't really a gamble if they make proper cpus without failure points, but it indeed is a gamble if there is a widespread issue like this one.
The_soulprophet@reddit
No warranty on a processor is always a gamble. Everyone who bought retail has a five year warranty.
Rell955@reddit
285k will be ur best option vs a 14900k you already have everything you need for the platform, I would trade the 4 sticks of ram out for 2 (2x32). Are you running all 4 at 7200?
Alone_Abbreviations1@reddit (OP)
Yes, all 4 at 7200
M3dicayne@reddit
It is highly unlikely that is working properly. VERY unlikely. Run MemTest86, Super Pi and Prime95 (Memory IOPS / read, write). If all run smoothly without any errors, you're lucky. But consider me sceptical you will finish even one without Bluescreen.
Alone_Abbreviations1@reddit (OP)
Clarification on my RAM configuration:
I am running 4x16GB sticks at 7200 MT/s. I did have trouble with the XMP and couldn’t get it to run at anything higher than 5000 MT/s myself, so I brought it back to the shop and had their techs figure it out for me. They said that the BIOS needed to be updated and that now everything is running at 7200 MT/s. I confirmed this by looking at my task manager and it showed 7200 MT/s. I don’t think I’ve had any system issues since.
(I did have 2 crashes of Tomb Raider 2013 and 1 crash of Rise of the Tomb Raider, but I attributed these to Steam… maybe it wasn’t?)
I’ll look into MemTest86, Super Pi, and Prime95 tomorrow. I can also look in the bios to see if my XMP is on (I don’t see any reason it shouldn’t be, but it’d be more confirmation that the shop did what I paid them them to do). I’m curious to see the results!
M3dicayne@reddit
Both Intel and AMD have technical difficulties reaching advertised overclocking RAM speeds. Two sticks and you should easily reach 6000MT/s with AMD and 6600-7000MT/s with Intel. But 4 sticks and you are lucky to reach 5000+ with any of them. So, what I would think would be they switched 4x 16GB with 2x 32GB. Same amount but easily oc'ed to claimed speed.
Alone_Abbreviations1@reddit (OP)
My case has glass panels and I can see the 4 sticks I purchased in there.
Yommination@reddit
Most likely not going to happen
Fahi05@reddit
Amd
Piotr_Barcz@reddit
285K overall I think is the better CPU as it has an aggregate benchmark score higher than the 14900K. It's also WAY WAY WAY WAY more power efficient! And it doesn't run anywhere close to as hot as the 14tjh gen i9. Overall I think it's the better value for the money.
Infamous_Campaign687@reddit
Personally I would reconsider AMD. It is a good idea to be comfortable with both and pick whichever makes sense at any given point. Getting too used to one to the point where you are uncomfortable with the other, leaves you more open to ending up with a real dud.
Next time Intel has a decent product I should take my own advice and choose them, but I don’t think now is the right time.
oloshh@reddit
If you're already on LGA1851, stick to the platform you're on
Alone_Abbreviations1@reddit (OP)
I still have about 20 days left to exchange hardware, so I could switch to another motherboard if I decide the change in platform is desirable. Is the LGA1851 platform better than the older models? I thought it was just different to accommodate the different processor line.
oloshh@reddit
LGA1700 as it stands is a dead platform, it makes sense for Intel to have further products stay on the same socket so 1851 might be here to stay for a bit. Makes sense for your future upgrade, especially because the current core ultra cpu's are mostly shit
redditjul@reddit
Intel kept performance up for the most part, while reducing power consumption and eliminating hyper threading. While that may not be the performance gain we all want compared to 14th gen, it’s a positive sign of what’s to come if they keep at it. If you want to go Intel go with the 285k. Definitely not 13th or 14th gen
Alone_Abbreviations1@reddit (OP)
I did notice that hyper threading was gone and that thread counts were lower. Why is that? What benefit were we getting with more threads?
oldsnowcoyote@reddit
Maybe this will help
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html
winterkoalefant@reddit
If you already have the Core 7 265K I wouldn't change it. It's a good CPU. The Core i9-14900K is 10% faster in games for much more power consumption. Core 9 285K is best case 15% faster in productivity workloads, often less.
OriginTruther@reddit
So the 285k is definitely a better productivity card than the 14900k, however the 14900k is a better gaming cpu over the 285k. $433 vs. $600 price difference. You'll have to make up your own mind for what matters more to you.
Active-Quarter-4197@reddit
14900k has better gaming performance and
285k better productivity performance, upgradbility and power efficiency
Tbh if u don’t care about power usage and upgradbility then get the 14900k