Ebay listing sees Intel's Core Ultra 7 265K offered one day before release — but its not exactly a bargain

TheHerald said:

If they are bad I have no issue calling intel out for it. From what's been leaked from oc3d everything bar gaming looks to be exceptional. Especially the i5 and the i7 are way better than the competition in performance and efficiency.

Maybe the leaks were completely fake, dunno, we will find out soon.

XXLY8kEdR1cView: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXLY8kEdR1c

this is an ugly release; apparently if you don't manually disable the igpu in the bios and run an nvidia gpu, you'll get endless blue screens because intel doesn't know how to make microcode anymore. it trips easy anti-cheat, the energy savings aren't as impressive as intel claims (it's actually pretty good at 30-40% better then 14th gen, but still way behind ryzen both in pure energy draw and energy unit per work done) and the performance, well it seems to perform about as good as a r7 5700x3d in most games. slower then the 14th gen chips, and significantly slower then the r7 7800x3d; the lone game the 285 was an improvement in was starfield.

it does significantly better in production, as the 2nd fastest chip behind only the r9 9950x; though it is important to note the r9 is a 16c/32t chip, where as the 285 is a 24c (8p, 16e)/24t chip.

as a production chip it's fairly good. but for gaming it's not even as attractive as 13th gen or ryzen 4 chips. (in part due to their price)

TheHerald said:

Mlid is your source? Oh god

MILD has a very good track record for leaks, and his own analysis, being spot on. I've been watching his vids for a while now and he does not disappoint.

Also, I read from another source yesterday about the Arrow Lake instabilities being mentioned by different reviewers.

To add to that, Intel said that Arrow Lake will not have the same "dying/crashing" issue as 13/14 gen, because it's a different architecture, but Intel lies, and Unanimous Intel Engineer on MILD, recently, stated that 13/14 and Arrow Lake are of the same CPU family.

... I left the building to look for more popcorn.

ingtar33 said:

XXLY8kEdR1cView: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXLY8kEdR1c

this is an ugly release; apparently if you don't manually disable the igpu in the bios and run an nvidia gpu, you'll get endless blue screens because intel doesn't know how to make microcode anymore. it trips easy anti-cheat, the energy savings aren't as impressive as intel claims (it's actually pretty good at 30-40% better then 14th gen, but still way behind ryzen both in pure energy draw and energy unit per work done) and the performance, well it seems to perform about as good as a r7 5700x3d in most games. slower then the 14th gen chips, and significantly slower then the r7 7800x3d; the lone game the 285 was an improvement in was starfield.

it does significantly better in production, as the 2nd fastest chip behind only the r9 9950x; though it is important to note the r9 is a 16c/32t chip, where as the 285 is a 24c (8p, 16e)/24t chip.

as a production chip it's fairly good. but for gaming it's not even as attractive as 13th gen or ryzen 4 chips. (in part due to their price)

None of what you said is true but too much to unpack. Power draw seems exceptional, overall much better than the 9950x.

TheHerald said:

None of what you said is true but too much to unpack. Power draw seems exceptional, overall much better than the 9950x.

I don't know who's reviews you are reading but the following issues have been confirmed by multiple review sites.
1) blue screening with igpu enabled, and nvidia graphics cards. intel is aware of the issue and plans a bios update to resolve
2) these chips do trip "easy anti cheat" there are apparently some things you can manually do in the bios to fix this problem. or you can wait for the patch/bios update
3) the energy savings, while impressive still leave the u9 285k drawing about x2 the power the ryzen r9 9950x draws; as a result the performance per watt of these chips are behind even the r7 5800x3d
4) in gaming, outside of one or two heavily intel optimized titles (like starfield), the u9 285k performs about identically to the r7 5700x3d, and pretty usually worse then the r7 5800x3d, and significantly behind the r7 7800x3d.
5) in production benchmarks the u9 285k does shine; performing on par with or slightly behind the r9 9950x. This is a significant improvement in heavy multithreaded loads for intel, even winning some benches from the r9 9950x. However it does technically have more physical cores then the r9... 20 to the r9's 16... though the R9 does have hyperthreading. on the whole if you're into CAD or 3D rendering intel has made a compelling product for you. the problem is if you want to do more. the r9 is a significantly better gaming chip (not even comparable really) and it draws 1/2 the power the u9 285k.

Id say the 285k draws six times the power of the 9950x. Why only stop at two? Man you are too far gone into your amd bubble, what freaking ever.

Literally every review has them on par in gaming performance with the 285k using significantly less power but nope, we have to listen to your made up stories.