Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs Intel Core i5 12400T

VS

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

Intel Core i5 12400T

We compared two desktop CPUs: Intel Core Ultra 9 285K with 24 cores 3.7GHz and Intel Core i5 12400T with 6 cores 1.8GHz . You will find out which processor performs better in benchmark tests, key specifications, power consumption and more.

Main Differences

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K 's Advantages

Released 2 years and 9 months late

Higher specification of memory (6400 vs 4800)

Larger memory bandwidth (102.4GB/s vs 76.8GB/s)

Higher base frequency (3.7GHz vs 1.8GHz)

Larger L3 cache size (36MB vs 18MB)

More modern manufacturing process (3nm vs 10nm)

Intel Core i5 12400T 's Advantages

Newer PCIe version (5 vs 5.0)

Lower TDP (35W vs 125W)

Score

Benchmark

Geekbench 6 Single Core

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K +65%

3377

Intel Core i5 12400T

2041

Geekbench 6 Multi Core

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K +242%

23094

Intel Core i5 12400T

6750

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

VS

Intel Core i5 12400T

General Parameters

Oct 2024

Release Date

Jan 2022

Intel

Manufacturer

Intel

Desktop

Type

Desktop

x86-64

Instruction Set

-

Arrow Lake

Core Architecture

Alder Lake-S

285K

Processor Number

-

FCLGA-1851

Socket

Intel Socket 1700

Arc Xe2 (Arrow Lake-S)

Integrated Graphics

UHD Graphics 730

Ultra 9(Arrow Lake)

Generation

Core i5 (Alder Lake-S)

Package

3 nm

Manufacturing Process

10 nm

125 W

Power Consumption

35 W

250 W

Max Turbo Power Consumption

-

105 °C

Peak Operating Temperature

-

TSMC

Foundry

Intel

-

Die Size

163 mm²

CPU Performance

8

Performance Cores

-

8

Performance Core Threads

-

3.7 GHz

Performance Core Base Frequency

1.8 GHz

5.5 GHz

Performance Core Turbo Frequency

4.2 GHz

16

Efficiency Cores

-

16

Efficiency Core Threads

-

3.2 GHz

Efficiency Core Base Frequency

-

4.6 GHz

Efficiency Core Turbo Frequency

-

24

Total Core Count

6

24

Total Thread Count

12

100 MHz

Bus Frequency

100 MHz

37

Multiplier

18.0

112 K per core

L1 Cache

80 KB per core

3 MB per core

L2 Cache

1.25 MB per core

36 MB shared

L3 Cache

18 MB shared

Yes

Unlocked Multiplier

No

1

SMP

1

Memory Parameters

DDR5-6400

Memory Types

DDR4-3200, DDR5-4800

192 GB

Max Memory Size

-

2

Max Memory Channels

2

102.4 GB/s

Max Memory Bandwidth

76.8 GB/s

Yes

ECC Memory Support

No

Graphics Card Parameters

true

Integrated Graphics

true

300 MHz

GPU Base Frequency

300 MHz

2000 MHz

GPU Max Dynamic Frequency

1450 MHz

512

Shader Units

-

16

Texture Units

-

8

Raster Operation Units

-

64

Execution Units

24

2.05 TFLOPS

Graphics Performance

-

Miscellaneous

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

Official Website

Intel Core i5 12400T

5.0

PCIe Version

5

24

PCIe Lanes

20

Related CPU Comparisons

1

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs AMD Threadripper PRO 7945WX

2

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs Intel Core i7 14700KF

3

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs AMD Ryzen 5 7600

4

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs Intel Core i5 9600KF

5

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs Intel Core i5 14500T

6

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs Intel Core i5 12600

7

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs Intel Celeron G3930

8

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs Intel Core i7 7700

9

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs Intel Core i7 13700

10

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs Intel Core i5 14401TE

Related News

1

Intel Confirms Panther Lake Adopts 18A Process, ES0 Samples Already Sent to Customers

2

Complete Lineup of Core Ultra 200HX/H/U and Core 200H/U Revealed: 31 Models to Dazzle the Eyes

3

Amechi Unveils V1 Mini PC: Only 0.33L Volume with 150W Power Consumption

4

iPhone 17 Series Set for Major Design Overhaul: Camera Module Transformed into Sleek Strip

5

The Thinnest iPhone Ever! iPhone 17 Air Reportedly Enters Foxconn's NPI Stage

6

Apple Allegedly Cancels M4 Extreme, Originally Planned for Mac Pro with 64-Core CPU and 160-Core GPU

7

Cyberpunk 2077 Update 2.2: Intel Arrow Lake Gaming Performance Soars by 33%!

8

Intel Finally Achieves Frame Generation! 'F1 24' Becomes the First XeSS 2 Game

9

World's First! Intel Arc B580 Graphics Card Arrives Early

10

Linux Creator Criticizes AMD and Intel's x86 Microarchitecture: A Complete Disaster