PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Core i7-9700K

2018

Why buy it

✅Costs $204 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 285 across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 57,442).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 36 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 37.4 vs 97.5 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
❌46.2% higher power demand at 95W vs 65W.

Core Ultra 9 285

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +64.8% higher average FPS across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+200% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Delivers 160.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 97.5 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($589 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 95W, a 30W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1151 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌
53% HIGHER MSRP
$589 MSRPvs$385 MSRP

Core i7-9700K

2018

Core Ultra 9 285

2025

Why buy it

✅Costs $204 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +64.8% higher average FPS across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+200% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Delivers 160.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 97.5 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($589 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 95W, a 30W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1151 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 285 across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 57,442).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 36 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 37.4 vs 97.5 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
❌46.2% higher power demand at 95W vs 65W.

Trade-offs

❌
53% HIGHER MSRP
$589 MSRPvs$385 MSRP

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 9 285 better than Core i7-9700K?

Yes. Core Ultra 9 285 is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 64.8% average FPS lead across 5 shared CPU game tests in our data, 299% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core Ultra 9 285 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 64.8% more average FPS across 5 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 9 285 is the better fit. You are getting 299% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 24 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 200% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 12 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core Ultra 9 285 is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 9 285 is 53.0% more expensive on MSRP at $589 MSRP versus $385 MSRP, and it gives you a 64.8% average FPS lead across 5 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 160.8% better value on MSRP (97.5 vs 37.4 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core Ultra 9 285 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2018), a healthier platform with LGA1851 and DDR5 instead of LGA1151, 200% larger total L3 cache (36 MB vs 12 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 24 threads instead of 8/8. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core i7-9700K Benchmark Check

Core Ultra 9 285 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Core Ultra 9 285
1080p
low	308 FPS	309 FPS
medium	278 FPS	299 FPS
high	231 FPS	246 FPS
ultra	182 FPS	208 FPS
1440p
low	270 FPS	269 FPS
medium	221 FPS	228 FPS
high	178 FPS	175 FPS
ultra	143 FPS	154 FPS
4K
low	170 FPS	179 FPS
medium	140 FPS	151 FPS
high	108 FPS	112 FPS
ultra	95 FPS	101 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Core Ultra 9 285

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Core Ultra 9 285
1080p
low	360 FPS	802 FPS
medium	321 FPS	700 FPS
high	291 FPS	565 FPS
ultra	259 FPS	495 FPS
1440p
low	324 FPS	682 FPS
medium	282 FPS	614 FPS
high	258 FPS	505 FPS
ultra	225 FPS	408 FPS
4K
low	249 FPS	382 FPS
medium	221 FPS	349 FPS
high	208 FPS	326 FPS
ultra	179 FPS	283 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Core Ultra 9 285

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Core Ultra 9 285
1080p
low	360 FPS	866 FPS
medium	360 FPS	708 FPS
high	360 FPS	628 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	537 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	744 FPS
medium	360 FPS	611 FPS
high	360 FPS	529 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	453 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	527 FPS
medium	360 FPS	446 FPS
high	360 FPS	403 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	344 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Core Ultra 9 285

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Core Ultra 9 285
1080p
low	360 FPS	1075 FPS
medium	360 FPS	957 FPS
high	360 FPS	839 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	754 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	860 FPS
medium	360 FPS	754 FPS
high	360 FPS	659 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	583 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	633 FPS
medium	360 FPS	564 FPS
high	360 FPS	499 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Core Ultra 9 285

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-9700K and Core Ultra 9 285

Core i7-9700K

The Core i7-9700K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 14,397 points. Launch price was $374.

Core Ultra 9 285

The Core Ultra 9 285 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in Janeiro 2025 (recentemente). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 24 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 5.5 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 57,442 points. Launch price was $579.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i7-9700K packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285 offers 24 cores / 24 threads — the Core Ultra 9 285 has 16 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K versus 5.5 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 285 — a 11.5% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285 (base: 3.6 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core i7-9700K uses the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700K scores 14,397 against the Core Ultra 9 285's 57,442 — a 119.8% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-9700K vs 36 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 9 285.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Core Ultra 9 285
Cores / Threads	8 / 8	24 / 24+200%
Boost Clock	4.9 GHz	5.5 GHz+12%
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+44%	2.5 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	36 MB (total)+200%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	3 MB (per core)+1100%
Process	14 nm	3 nm-79%
Architecture	Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
PassMark	14,397	57,442+299%
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	40,000
Geekbench 6 Single	—	3,000
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	20,000

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-9700K uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses LGA1851 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i7-9700K versus DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 9 285 — the Core Ultra 9 285 supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core Ultra 9 285 supports up to 192 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 40% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i7-9700K) vs 24 (Core Ultra 9 285) — the Core Ultra 9 285 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 300 series (Core i7-9700K) and Intel 800 Series (Core Ultra 9 285).

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Core Ultra 9 285
Socket	LGA1151	LGA1851
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR5-6400+25%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	192 GB+50%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	24+50%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core i7-9700K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-9700K) vs Yes (Core Ultra 9 285). Both include integrated graphics — UHD Graphics 630 (Core i7-9700K) and Arc Graphics (Core Ultra 9 285) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-9700K targets Desktop, Core Ultra 9 285 targets High-End Gaming.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Core Ultra 9 285
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics 630	Arc Graphics
Unlocked	Yes	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	Yes
Target Use	Desktop	High-End Gaming

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i7-9700K launched at $385 MSRP, while the Core Ultra 9 285 debuted at $589. On MSRP ($385 vs $589), the Core i7-9700K is $204 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700K delivers 37.4 pts/$ vs 97.5 pts/$ for the Core Ultra 9 285 — making the Core Ultra 9 285 the 89.1% better value option.