Intel Core Ultra 5 245K vs. AMD R5 9600X or… R7 9700X?

Extra tests, Processors | | Ľubomír Samák

Conclusion

The lowest “K” model of the Intel Arrow Lake CPU family benefits, like its predecessors, from a large number of cores. Unlike them, it doesn’t have Hyper Threading, but it doesn’t lag behind compute-wise, and the Core Ultra 5 245K is more efficient. However, it’s not enough to rival the Ryzen 9000s. Not at high performance. In medium workloads, typical of gaming PCs, however, the situation turns around.

Conclusion

In multi-threaded compute tasks, the Core Ultra 5 245K processor’s speed tends to be just a hair above the Core i5-14600K. That seems to have been one of the main goals, not to make the new processor slower. Again, this was achieved without HT and even at roughly 18% higher efficiency than the previous generation of Intel processors. However, both the AMD R5 9600X and R7 9700X are significantly more efficient under heavy load, albeit at the cost of slightly lower compute performance. Again, it’s about choices and priorities.

Efficiency in games is already at a higher level with the Core Ultra 5 245K than with the competing Ryzen 9000s. Approximately the same as the Core i5-14600K. The older processor can sometimes be a little faster “gaming-wise”, but at higher resolutions, where the graphics card is the limiting factor, the Core Ultra 5 245K usually has the edge in our tests. However, don’t expect any significant differences that you might notice.

Intel’s Arrow Lake processor generation is overall mostly about the new platform (LGA 1851), which will inevitably be tied to the new DDR5 memory, just like AMD’s. Intel processors (Raptor Lake and Alder Lake) used to have a DDR4 controller as well, but this is no longer the case. Intel Core Ultra 200S (Arrow Lake) processors only support DDR5 memory, so the ability to save money with cheaper DDR4 memory is no longer an option on the Intel LGA 1851 platform. On the contrary, AMD has an advantage in this respect in cheaper motherboards (with A620 or B650 chipsets), which can be comfortably used with Ryzen 5 9600X or Ryzen 7 9700X processors. The Core Ultra 5 245K, meanwhile, is “bound” to working only with Z890 motherboards, which are often more expensive than the processor itself.

Some intergenerational improvement in this class occurred in single-threaded performance. This is approximately 5% higher with the CU5 245K (than with the Ci5-14600K). That’s at comparable power consumption. So the efficiency of the SC boost is higher. Again, nothing staggering – just a small step forward. As for the ST performance, even the cheaper Ryzen 5 9600X is usually faster.

We can recommend the Core Ultra 5 245K processor for building a new PC if the multi-threaded performance of Ryzen 5 or 7 is not enough for you. However, upgrading from the previous platform (LGA 1700) for more attractive features doesn’t make much sense. Compared to the Core i5-14600K, you don’t get much improvement in speed, and the power consumption is only slightly lower.

However, the cooling requirements are significantly reduced under heavy load. Even a mid-range cooler is enough to keep temperatures low enough with the Core Ultra 5 245K. It should be able to handle everything even when regulated to run quieter.

English translation and edit by Jozef Dudáš

* The price quoted may not correspond to the current market price. With all processors (AMD and Intel) we always work off of the MSRP.
Appeal: If you find any errors in the text of the article, typically typos or misspellings, we will be grateful if you report them to info@hwcooling.net. This activity will make it easier for others to read and you could be rewarded with prizes in the form of valuable fans at the end of the year. You can also point out any passages that may be difficult to understand, which we will edit for better comprehension.

We would like to thank the Datacomp e-shop for their cooperation in providing the tested hardware

Special thanks also to Blackmagic Design (for DaVinci Resolve Studio license), Topaz Labs (for licenses to DeNoise AI, Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI) and Zoner (for Photo Studio X license)


  •  
  •  
  •  
Back to: Intel Core Ultra 5 245K in detail
Flattr this!

Related articles

Comments (4) Add comment

  1. Any thoughts why the idle power consumption of ryzen 9600 and 9700 is so different? I’d expect these to be essentially the same–both contain the same chiplets, and when idling, I’d expect only 1-2 cores to be active…
    Something to do with silicon lottery?

    Reply

    1. Very good logical reasoning. The difference in power consumption between the Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X should be really minimal taking into account the structure of both processors. Especially when they are tested on the same motherboard with the same power management setup. For more details, we went to the HWiNFO log, where the 9700X is even shaping up to be the lower-power CPU (~22.1 vs. ~23.9 W). This also makes sense considering the slightly higher core clock speeds and their power supply voltages in the R5 9600X, for example. However, we do not consider software monitoring to be relevant and transparent enough in CPU tests. Hence those measurements on EPS cables, where the results already fundamentally diverge. I can’t tell you the reason, it’s hard to say. Considering that both processors have only one chiplet with cores active and the difference is on the level of activity of two cores, I would also expect the values of the power consumption results to be close to each other.

      Reply

      1. It’s the same with other processors.
        Intel Core i5-13400F (C0): 2.1W
        Intel Core i5-14400F (C0): 10.97W

        Pretty much same CPU, 5x~ difference?

        Intel Core i3-13100F: 2.57W
        Intel Core i3-12100F: 16.75W

        Same as above

        Intel Core Ultra 9 285K: 17.37W
        Intel Core Ultra 5 245K: 22.42W

        Same generation, but the one with more cores uses less power in idle?

        12400F higher than 12900K and same as 7800X3D which famously has high idle power?

        Something doesn’t seem right with any of the numbers in the idle power tests. Were the conditions identical?

        Reply

        1. There may be more reasons, but I don’t want to speculate too much. It’s too complicated for that. Anyway, in the specified idle load the multiplier of the Core i5-13400F on P cores drops down to 4, while the Core i5-14400F’s is, I think, at 8. And I guess the management of the cores can be different, where only in one case the OS runs on the efficient (E) ones. I don’t know, I wouldn’t dig too much into it like this, we don’t like to speculate and we like to have clarity on things. With processors you can’t always do that, because we can’t see inside them well enough. It simply works out this way in this particular situation, and it is certainly correct.

          I certainly wouldn’t blame it on silicon lottery. Most people may be inclined to do so, but it is important to know that with the extremely low power consumption claimed for the Ci5-13400F (C0), the measurements of another sample of this processor – the Ci5-13400F (B0) – also scale well.

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *