Intel Core Ultra 9 285K beats the 14900K by 13% in leaked Cinebench R23 multi-core benchmark — Ryzen 9 9950X still leads the pack by 4%

The article said:

A screenshot of the CPU's benchmark results has leaked via a hardware enthusiast on Facebook, where the processor is seen sipping up to 250W of power but that is offset by its performance.

Ugh. The only other place I see using this construction is WCCFTech. They do not seem to understand that a sip is a small drink, because they habitually talk about how much power something "sips", no matter how much it is. It's basically the smallest amount you can drink of something. It's distinguished for other drinking words, like "drinks", "gulps", "guzzles", "chugs", specifically by its smallness!

Yes, it can be used as an ironic reference to an unusually large amount, but 250W isn't (any longer) unusually large power consumption, for a desktop CPU. It's also not clear the author is being ironic. If you do this habitually, then it loses its potential for irony, as well as its connotation for being small.

There are so many other descriptive words you could use: gulps, guzzles, chugs, drinks, burns, dissipates, consumes, ...and probably half a dozen more, if I'd bother to pop open a thesaurus.

The article said:

This puts it 13% faster than the Core i9-14900K; an impressive outcome as Arrow Lake skips out on Hyperthreading.

Yeah, but rendering is heavy on floating-point, which is where Skymont made huge strides. Hyperthreading rarely ever adds more than 20-30%, at best, yet if you look at the claimed floating-point improvements in Skymont, Intel claims a 68% IPC improvement vs. Crestmont, which is already a little better than Gracemont.

So, if you consider 0.68 * 16 works out to the equivalent of 10.88 additional Gracemont cores (assuming everything scaled linearly, which it obviously dosen't. Then, consider the worst-case impact of no hyperthreading, which works out to about 23.1% less performance from the 8 P-cores. So, it's basically as if you're trading the IPC of 2 P-cores for an additional 10 E-cores. Obviously, that's a win.

The article said:

It is pertinent to mention that Cinebench is a synthetic benchmark

It benchmarks an actual production renderer, which is incorporated into Cinema 4D. The point of it is to enable 3D artists to measure how fast different machines will do rendering of their creations. That makes it about as synthetic as a canned benchmark of a game. Both are meant to predict how fast the app will run, but they're pre-scripted to streamline the job of making comparisons.

It's a pretty good proxy for anything fp-heavy that's highly-multithreaded.

bit_user said:

Ugh. The only other place I see using this construction is WCCFTech. They do not seem to understand that a sip is a small drink, because they habitually talk about how much power something "sips", no matter how much it is. It's basically the smallest amount you can drink of something. It's distinguished for other drinking words, like "drinks", "gulps", "guzzles", "chugs", specifically by its smallness!

Yes, it can be used as an ironic reference to an unusually large amount, but 250W isn't (any longer) unusually large power consumption, for a desktop CPU. It's also not clear the author is being ironic. If you do this habitually, then it loses its potential for irony, as well as its connotation for being small.

There are so many other descriptive words you could use: gulps, guzzles, chugs, drinks, burns, dissipates, consumes, ...and probably half a dozen more, if I'd bother to pop open a thesaurus.


Yeah, but rendering is heavy on floating-point, which is where Skymont made huge strides. Hyperthreading rarely ever adds more than 20-30%, at best, yet if you look at the claimed floating-point improvements in Skymont, Intel claims a 68% IPC improvement vs. Crestmont, which is already a little better than Gracemont.

So, if you consider 0.68 * 16 works out to the equivalent of 10.88 additional Gracemont cores (assuming everything scaled linearly, which it obviously dosen't. Then, consider the worst-case impact of no hyperthreading, which works out to about 23.1% less performance from the 8 P-cores. So, it's basically as if you're trading the IPC of 2 P-cores for an additional 10 E-cores. Obviously, that's a win.


It benchmarks an actual production renderer, which is incorporated into Cinema 4D. The point of it is to enable 3D artists to measure how fast different machines will do rendering of their creations. That makes it about as synthetic as a canned benchmark of a game. Both are meant to predict how fast the app will run, but they're pre-scripted to streamline the job of making comparisons.

It's a pretty good proxy for anything fp-heavy that's highly-multithreaded.

HT off is around a 12-14% drop in performance on 14900k in CBR23 and 24 respectively.

If there are real numbers, 285k is ~= 14900k. It doesn't seem like it beats it. Got the same score on a stock 14900k roughly at the same power draw

Seems good enough for the desktop sector to keep Intel from croaking or being consumed whole by another company for another year or so. I cannot wait for benchmarks.