Hey, the Core Ultra 7 265K is now more affordable than the i7-14700K at Microcenter.
Hey, the Core Ultra 7 265K is now more affordable than the i7-14700K at Microcenter.
I believe this topic deserves a conversation. I've talked about it before, but recently I upgraded and found Core Ultra still priced higher than the 14th-gen chips. It's frustrating when Intel seems focused on gamers with poor choices instead of creating powerful workstation processors for everyone. Games seem to be struggling, as some online users claim only recently have popular engines reached four cores. It makes me think about a better scheduler that could reserve multiple high-E cores for demanding apps, potentially letting a 6-core setup with strong performance compete with AMD.
They don't perform well for gamers and are generally disliked by most people.
On high-resolution displays, non-competitive titles run best with GPU performance still being the main factor. Even powerful GPUs like 14600K or 9600X offer solid gaming options. X3D chips tend to be more beneficial for competitive play at the moment. Note: actual improvements of around 1% and .1% in X3D can be seen in most games, though the cost gap remains significant.
The absence of HT offers benefits as long as overall performance remains stable, which typically happens in productivity tasks. The 200 series has consistently faced criticism over cost and gaming speed. Intel has adjusted pricing, but performance lags behind expectations. When comparing options, no single solution excels unless it matches the same level of multicore efficiency for simpler jobs. Not all tasks benefit from parallel processing. The chiplet design appears to introduce challenges in gaming, likely due to memory delays or inter-core communication issues reminiscent of earlier Ryzen models. Intel should resolve these concerns before moving forward with new architectures. It’s frustrating that they’ll need another generation of chipsets to achieve parity, which feels unnecessary given the demand for such solutions. To compete with Ryzen, Intel must solidify LGA-Arbitrary-New-Pin-Count support across multiple generations and commit fully. Otherwise, AM5 will likely remain the preferred choice in the near term.
I often question how individuals reach such conclusions. It's not better enough that has and should never have meant it was worse. If Zen 5x3D had never been released, I truly believe people would still view Zen 5 as inferior compared to Zen 4, simply because it wasn't a 15% improvement.
The main ultra chips are actually underperforming compared to their 14th generation peers when handling heavy workloads. They handle multiple tasks well, but they fall short for gaming or demanding workstation applications. The Core 9 285k doesn’t even surpass the 13900k from the 13th gen models with higher IPCs, superior cores, or anything else. Their design is lacking, and tests like Cinebench or in-game scores confirm this.
Watched some TechTubers lately? They often exaggerate things beyond what’s realistic, making even small differences seem huge. Another issue is how comparisons are made: architecture – how effectively it handles tasks? Product performance – the actual capabilities of a specific CPU? Value at market – considering cost and value over time? People tend to choose the option that supports their opinion. Saying Intel is bad at gaming is completely inaccurate. They may not currently lead, but that doesn’t negate their past contributions. What I’m about to share might surprise some: You don’t need a 9800X3D or higher to play games. A 7600 can handle the job just fine, and newer Intel CPUs are capable too.
The 13th and 14th gen models are essentially two versions of Raptor Lake. The distinction between the 14th and 13th becomes confusing since the real gap is only about 50 MHz. It’s upsetting when the difference comes down to just 0.05 volts at a lower voltage. Claiming the i9 285k isn’t better than the 13900k is misleading. It actually performs about 2% worse, around 67%, in power usage. The main problem was always the cost, not performance. It wouldn’t pay off in four years from saving power. For non-gaming tasks, Arrowlake edges out Raptor Lake in both speed and efficiency. This means you’d complete jobs quicker while using less energy. Yes, you get higher frame rates—like 140 FPS instead of 145 on the i9 14900K—but you’re also drawing more power, around 77W compared to 120W for gaming. For tasks like H.265 encoding, you’d achieve 70 FPS instead of 60 at a lower efficiency. So in an hour of 60 FPS video, the Ultra can finish in 51 minutes versus 60 minutes on the Core i9, using 178Wh versus 234Wh. This workload is heavier than gaming, so the savings matter more.
They didn't just lag behind the 14900k and 13900k chips; they were essentially the same in every way. It's basically a minor difference. The ultra also offers a complete upgrade over the AMD 3600x in all scenarios. The main problem was only its launch price for gamers. Since the processor is cheaper than what you see in OPs screenshots, the case against the ultra isn't very solid.