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

Extra tests, Processors | | Ľubomír Samák

Intel Core Ultra 5 245K in detail

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.

Intel Core Ultra 5 245K in detail

This processor uses the same silicon chips as the higher-end Core Ultra 7 265K or Core Ultra 9 285K models. It is also a B0 stepping, but with fewer active CPU cores. The Core Ultra 5 245K has only six performance cores, eight efficiency cores – fourteen in total (6+8).

Hyper Threading is not included here either, so it is a fourteen-thread processor. Compared to its predecessor in the form of the Core i5-14600K, the new processor has fewer threads, but still shouldn’t be slower. The new architectures (Lion Cove and Skymont) have higher IPCs, and also the E cores are significantly faster than they used to be in the older Raptor Lake (Refresh) CPUs.

You’ve already seen that Intel Core Ultra 200 processors can take on the competition even without HT in the Core Ultra 7 265K and Core Ultra 9 285K tests. In this case, it’s similar, although the question is with which of the Ryzen 9000 processors the Core Ultra 5 245K model competes. Compared to the Ryzen 5 9600X, which evokes a similar class with its name, it has more than double the number of cores, and Intel’s processor is also more expensive.

The CU5 245K has more cores, but fewer threads, also compared to the Ryzen 7 9700X. In this case, you will already save a bit of money by choosing the Core Ultra 5 245K, although in the context of the entire build, the price of the entire platform, which mainly includes the motherboard, will of course be the guiding factor. It is still the case that Intel processors are only supported by relatively expensive Z890 motherboards, while Ryzen 9000s can also be installed in cheap motherboards with A620 chipsets.

The Core Ultra 5 245K has the lowest all-core boost of any Intel Arrow Lake processor released to date, with official values of 5 GHz and 4.6 GHz for the P and E cores, respectively. On the other hand, the PL2 is only 159W (instead of the 250W of CU7 265K/CU9 285K). The base clock speeds per core, which are tied to the TDP, are also higher compared to the Core Ultra 7 and Core Ultra 9 processors. The TDP is also at 125 W for the CU7 245. With fewer cores, higher performance/clock speed per core can occur at the same power limit.

The SC boost is also the lowest compared to the other models with an open multiplier (i.e. with K in the designation). In single-threaded applications, it tops out at 5.2 GHz.

Please note: The article continues in the following chapters.

* We do not have certainty on this parameter. AMD does not specify the maximum resolution and maximum refresh rate in publicly available materials. However, it is possible that it will be the same as for Ryzen 7000s, i.e. 3840 × 2160 px (60 Hz).


  •  
  •  
  •  
Continue:
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 *