Intel
Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs AMD A6-9500
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
AMD
A6-9500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Core Ultra 9 285K and A6-9500 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗Core Ultra 9 285K outperforms A6-9500 by 3505% based on our aggregate benchmark results.+3505%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better.Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs AMD A6-9500: key takeaway
The comparison of Core Ultra 9 285K and A6-9500 shows a 4300% advantage for Core Ultra 9 285K in gaming performance, while A6-9500 may still be stronger in efficiency and feature set. Use the sections below to check whether that lead comes from real FPS, specifications, efficiency, price or platform features.
SUMMARY PROFILE
Verified-metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
Intel
AMDPerformance
Single-core
Multi-core
L3 cache
Efficiency
441
9563
806
10
222
COMPARISON RESULT
Core Ultra 9 285K is the best overall choice
Core Ultra 9 285K leads in overall performance, while Core Ultra 9 285K offers better price-to-performance. Check results in your applications before making the final choice.
Core Ultra 9 285K leads in the combined performance index
A6-9500 costs less
OVERALL SCORE
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
The Summary score section compares Core Ultra 9 285K and A6-9500 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
44Better
1
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
38Better
7
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
36Better
5
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
22Better
2
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
39Better
1
FULL COMPARISON
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
The Specifications section compares Core Ultra 9 285K and A6-9500 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
Release date20242016
Device classDesktopDesktop
PassMark68241Better1893
PBP / MTP125 / 250 WBetter65 W
Cores / Threads8P+16E / 24Better2
SocketLGA1851BetterAM4
ArchitectureArrow LakeBristol Ridge
Clock speedP 3,7 - 5,7 GHz / E 3,2 - 4,6 GHzBetter3,5 - 3,8 GHz
Base clock3700 MHzBetter3500 MHz
Boost clock5700 MHzBetter3800 MHz
L1 cache112 KB per P-core, 96 KB per E-coreBetter80 KB per module
L2 cache3 MB per P-core, 4 MB per E-core clusterBetter1 MB per module
L3 cache36 MBBetter1 MB
Integrated graphicsArc Xe2 64 2 GHzR5 1 GHzBetter
Power consumption125 / 250 W65 WBetter
Process node3 nmBetter28 nm
Memory supportDDR5-6400BetterDDR4-2400
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
The Benchmarks section compares Core Ultra 9 285K and A6-9500 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
H2H Single-core IndexH2H Index / 100956341%
H2H Multi-core IndexH2H Index / 100806172%
H2H Productivity IndexH2H Index / 1007222106%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100645171%
H2H Value IndexH2H Index / 100000%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
The Detailed comparison section compares Core Ultra 9 285K and A6-9500 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
H2H ML Preprocessing IndexH2H Index / 100311188%
H2H CPU Inference IndexH2H Index / 100341189%
H2H Local LLM CPU IndexH2H Index / 100261185%
H2H Data Pipeline IndexH2H Index / 100351189%
H2H Computer Vision CPU IndexH2H Index / 100331188%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
AI EXPLAIN · HEAD TO HEAD
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
REAL CONFIGURATIONS
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
♢Moderator reviewed☆Helpful to the community🏅Expert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: Core Ultra 9 285K or A6-9500?+
Core Ultra 9 285K has the higher overall gaming score, while Core Ultra 9 285K offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
Core Ultra 9 285K is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
Core Ultra 9 285K is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
Core Ultra 9 285K offers more overall performance, while Core Ultra 9 285K offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
Core Ultra 9 285K is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
Core Ultra 9 285K is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
Core Ultra 9 285K leads in combined 1440p performance. Core Ultra 9 285K can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
Core Ultra 9 285K is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
Core Ultra 9 285K is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
Core Ultra 9 285K is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to Core Ultra 9 285K if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.