Intel's new flagship CPU is kind of a mess: Core Ultra 9 285K gaming review

[@BlueThunder1965]

Wait... I thought I saw this "intels slowest cpu" video 2 weeks ago ?? 🤔🤨

[@R6ex]

X3D - better gaming performance, cheaper CPU, cheaper motherboard with longer platform support, less power-hungry, less heat, lower temps, better longevity

[@Zhandos18]

7800x3d on cs2 only 340 fps? It shud get 600 at least

[@Silicon-Insights]

I am noticing that others seem to get better performance with the 7800X3D in CS2 but I'm unsure why. I've never gotten good performance in that game with the 7800X3D, I tested it all the way back for the 14th Gen launch and I found similarly poor performance. It can't be a test bench issue I don't think since the test bench I have now uses a new Windows installation entirely. Maybe it's the map and how I test? I just do practice rounds on Dust 2 with bots.

[@Zhandos18]

@@Silicon-Insights prob try to in-game bench

[@smart_692]

@@Silicon-Insights I think it is just the silicon lottery and you got the edge of the silicon wafer like my 5600G :/

[@Silicon-Insights]

So there is no in game benchmark for CS2 but I looked it up and found that the editor of Phoronix actually made his own, I'll try it out and see if it's good.

[@Silicon-Insights]

Not how the silicon lottery works, you're not going to notice you got a lemon unless you try overclocking.

[@uhohwhy]

dun care how much it draws if it cant compete

[@Vidal6x6]

This cpu will be a bug mess. Keep the lga 1700. Got one 14700t for 286 usd. Will give it 105w and see the world burn...

[@LeventeKopacz]

Almost all the reviewers are bechmarking the processors by FPS in games while most of us doesn't use them for gaming (quick remark: FPS above 60 aren't visible to the eye).

[@Silicon-Insights]

Gaming is absolutely one of the top use cases for these CPUs (if it wasn't, Intel wouldn't bother testing games in its reviewer's guide or talking so much about gaming performance), and yes, you can see more than 60 FPS. Just because the standard refresh rate for displays has been 60 Hz for a while doesn't mean you can't see more than that. You can test it for yourself, get a 120 Hz or higher monitor and just move the cursor around, and then compare how that looks with the refresh rate set to 60 Hz. If you can't tell the difference, you might just not be all that discerning.

[@kelownatechkid]

Oh no 😅 not great..

[@03chrisv]

i9/ultra 9 cpus were never designed for gaming. The i5/i7/u5/u7 are better suited for that as they offer better price to performance in gaming workloads. People that would buy a 285k are likely video editors/producers, or do CPU based 3D rendering or converting 3D scans into meshes, etc etc. From that perspective, the 285k can be upwards of 20% faster or more than a 14900k. Of course, I understand the disappointment with the 285k as it's not an upgrade in every workload, especially in gaming. But if you're buying an i9/u9 processor for gaming, that sounds more like user error than actually it being a bad product. That's like if I bought a big pickup truck trying to drive it as if it were a sports car, but I'm disappointmented that it doesn't accelerate like a sports car.

[@Silicon-Insights]

Hard disagree, Intel has consistently advertised the i9 chips as being for games ever since the 9900K came out. The 285K being better suited for productivity isn't a good excuse, especially since the 265K is undoubtedly slower and won't have a particularly good value proposition either. Also all the potential issues with LGA 1851.

[@RobBCactive]

Intel only give largest cache sizes and frequency on the top SKUs, if you want sensible choices for high end gaming *800x3D.

[@Accuaro]

@@Silicon-Insights They are coping lol, nice review.

[@JDD_Tech_MODS]

Avoid the 285K like the plague!! Any last gen is a better value/buy/gaming/overclocking chip than this garbage of a chip.