Intel Core Ultra 9 285VSAMD EPYC 4464P
Performance, specifications and real-world gaming comparison
♜ WINNERIntel Core Ultra 9 285+1%Better overall performance
Intel
Core Ultra 9 285
VSWINNERCore Ultra 9 2850%H2H overall index
AMD
EPYC 4464P
Performans7062
Verimlilik4974
Data confidence6262
Fixed-scale H2H model. Missing metrics are omitted instead of estimated from the overall score.
SUMMARY PROFILE
Verified-metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
IntelAMDPerformance
Single-core
Multi-core
L3 cache
Efficiency
7062
9390
7866
11
4974
COMMUNITY · VERIFIED DATA
Open streamer setups→Hardware used by streamers
Real public setups linked to each device.
IntelCore Ultra 9 2850No verified public setup yet
AMDEPYC 4464P0No verified public setup yet
KARŞILAŞTIRMA SONUCU
The devices received the same overall score
Core Ultra 9 285 leads in overall performance, while Core Ultra 9 285 offers better price-to-performance. Check results in your applications before making the final choice.
Performance is nearly identical
EPYC 4464P costs less
GENEL PUAN
Genel bakış
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
70Better
62
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
57Better
51
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
54Better
49
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
49
74Better
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
65
65
TAM KARŞILAŞTIRMA
Özellikler
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
PassMark57576Better48793
Çekirdek / iş parçacığı8P+16E / 2412 / 24Better
Clock speedP 2,5 - 5,6 GHz / E 1,9 - 4,6 GHz3,7 - 5,4 GHzBetter
Base clock2500 MHz3700 MHzBetter
Boost clock5600 MHzBetter5400 MHz
Кэш40+36 MBBetter12+64 MB
Кэш L336 MB64 MBBetter
SoketLGA1851BetterAM5
Встроенная графикаArc Xe2 64 2 GHzNavi II 2CU 2,2 GHz
PBP / MTP65 / 177 W105 WBetter
Power consumption65 / 177 WBetter105 W
Поддержка памятиDDR5-6400DDR5-5200
Process node3 nmBetter5 nm
ArchitectureArrow LakeRaphael
Кодовое имяArrow LakeRaphael
Release date——
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Single-core IndexH2H Index / 10093903%
H2H Multi-core IndexH2H Index / 100786617%
H2H Productivity IndexH2H Index / 100716312%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100635317%
H2H Value IndexH2H Index / 100000%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from 3DMark, Geekbench, Cinebench, PassMark, Blender, or another third-party benchmark.
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H ML Preprocessing IndexH2H Index / 100494411%
H2H CPU Inference IndexH2H Index / 100554912%
H2H Local LLM CPU IndexH2H Index / 100413613%
H2H Data Pipeline IndexH2H Index / 100565011%
H2H Computer Vision CPU IndexH2H Index / 100534712%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from 3DMark, Geekbench, Cinebench, PassMark, Blender, or another 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
Karşılaştırma hakkında sık sorulanlar
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: Core Ultra 9 285 or EPYC 4464P?+
Core Ultra 9 285 has the higher overall gaming score, while Core Ultra 9 285 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
Core Ultra 9 285 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 9 285 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 9 285 offers more overall performance, while Core Ultra 9 285 offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
Core Ultra 9 285 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 9 285 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
Core Ultra 9 285 leads in combined 1440p performance. Core Ultra 9 285 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
Core Ultra 9 285 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 9 285 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 9 285 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 9 285 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.