Core Ultra 285K
I couldn't find any discussion about this processor although that's not a big surprise as we all know the poor gaming performance has resulted in many negative reviews. Does anyone here have direct experience with this processor from a productivity standpoint? I'm curious to know what your experience has been.
Comments
yabs!
Wanna see 5k GB6 Singlecore
Free NAT KVM | Free NAT LXC | Bobr
ITS WEDNESDAY MY DUDES
minimum!
Core Ultra Series 9 max RAM capacity is 192 GB. That's pathetic given how powerful that dye is. Probably catered to gamers more, for servers there is better bang for the buck.
No experience of these, but I have the Ultra 5 125H from the previous generation.
Everything I watched on youtube around the series 2 were released suggested they were intended to have less performance than the series 1, but more efficient on power so that we could have even longer battery life / thinner laptops.
As for the 125H, I don't think the scheduler in Windows is very good. If I watch videos at 2x, quite a lot start loosing frames / desyncing, but they work at 1.5x or 1.75x. With performance monitor open while this is happened, only maybe 4-5 of the 18 threads are doing something. Not tried using Linux on this laptop yet.
I could see it doing well once it gets discounted a bit. I could see hetzner picking it up eventually
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intel-core-ultra-9-285k-cpu-review/3
It does perform better in productivity tasks, but AMD is still the better buy at this time.
thanks for link, that's a great point. I was underwhelmed by the amd 9000 series release as it offered me only a 8% performance increase over the previous 7000 series in the productivity arena. I was so excited about intel at the time and it turned out it was an even bigger turd. kinda sad but I guess I'll stick with my 13900k and skip the arrow lake mess.
speaking of the 285k, look at this ad I saw today! Guys, it was made to game!
We're avoiding Intel CPUs like the plague for this generation. We ran 14900K's and 14900KS in our data center for about a year through their silicon voltage issues to the point where Intel RMA team doesn't even ask me further questions anymore (had to RMA like 25+ of those bad boys now).
Although latest bios updates fixed this recently I don't think many dedi builders/sellers as well as gaming pc builders are really wanting to risk another generation of expensive back and fourth between their clients and intel.
Rumours are the new gen of chips are also having early signs of degradation if pushed too hard. Looking at bios updates too I see that they're releasing patches to fix "stability issues" in similar vein to the 12/13/14th gen nightmare.
I read that some Threadripper models warp due to heat, having 280 watt of TDP. If Intel chips brick under 150 watt of TDP, I wonder if Intel are still doctoring their TDP claims, making them look prettier than what they actually are.
Oh I stopped taking TDP's as the actual power usage a long time ago (excluding EPYC and XEON as they're pretty accurate).
14900KS turbo wattage was 254W, we've done power measurements and seen that chip suck back close to 400W.
I think the problem is the disconnect between the relationship of the chip designer (Intel/AMD) and the board makers (ASUS/Gigabyte/AsRock being the worst for it). They pump their board firmware with AI garbage and push the chips to the absolute maximum causing issues. I think we just got to the point where the amount of power we're dealing with now was enough to cause permanent damage to the products themselves.
We've done some pretty extensive testing on the AM5 platform and we're pretty happy with how its been so far!
The 14th gens are pretty solid when they're tamed back, but at that point you're paying KS pricing for the performance of a lower end chip so whats the point /shrug
Just a quick update. My local MicroCenter had an open box z890 board for $99 and I paired it with a new core ultra 7 265K which was $299 with $70 off for bundling with a motherboard. So, $330 later I'm now sporting an updated daily driver. I don't game on this rig but compared to my 13900K it feels like it is a little faster and what like most is that at idle I'm using 50% less power. The 13900K at stock was using around 60 something watts. The 265K now uses half that around 30 something. LIkewise when I fire up some demanding workloads, I see less power used overall for a little more performance.
My overall impression is that if you can score these processors/mobos at a discount then it's a no brainer but at retail price it's way overpriced. If Intel just admitted these new processors were underperformers due to the new architecture and did a deep discount at launch, there would have 2x or 3x demand for them unlike now. Sometimes being honest pays more than trying to bluff.
Pretty good. I want to get one (but probably wait for the newer Ryzen AI chips to release) since they're so low power with great performance.
ExtraVM
This may be due to insuficient cooling. Of course stock cooling should be enough... But than again, some peeps running TR chips on 99% load for 24/7/365.