After using both the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and 245K for over two months, I can finally share my honest thoughts about these Arrow Lake processors.
When Intel launched their Core Ultra 200 series, I was curious about how these new chips would perform in real-world scenarios.
The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 vs 245K comparison reveals some surprising results that might change your next CPU purchase decision.
Both processors represent Intel’s ambitious shift to a chiplet-based architecture, but they come with significant trade-offs that affect their value proposition.
Official Specifications: Intel Core Ultra 5 235 vs 245K
Let me start with the core specifications that define these Arrow Lake-S specs.
Both processors share the same core configuration but differ significantly in clock speeds and power consumption.
The 245K commands a $50-70 premium over the 235, primarily for higher clock speeds and unlocked multipliers.
Arrow Lake Architecture: What Makes These CPUs Different
In my experience with Arrow Lake, the biggest change is Intel’s move to a chiplet design using Foveros 3D packaging technology.
This architecture integrates components built on different manufacturing processes, with the CPU compute tile manufactured on TSMC’s advanced N3B process.
What I find particularly interesting is that both the Core Ultra 5 235 and 245K lack Hyper-Threading support.
This means you get 14 physical cores and 14 threads, representing a fundamental departure from Intel’s strategy over the past decade.
Intel’s decision to remove Hyper-Threading reflects their confidence in the new core architectures to compensate for the loss of logical threads.
Intel Skymont E-cores vs Intel Lion Cove P-cores Performance
The new Skymont E-cores represent perhaps the most significant architectural improvement in Arrow Lake.
According to technical analysis, these E-cores deliver approximately 50% better IPC performance compared to previous Crestmont cores.
I’ve noticed that tasks that previously would overwhelm older E-cores now run smoothly on these Skymont cores.
The Lion Cove P-cores also show substantial IPC improvements over Raptor Cove, making the lack of Hyper-Threading less problematic than expected.
This effectively redefines what constitutes a “core” since E-cores are now powerful enough to handle demanding workloads previously reserved for P-cores.
LGA1851 Motherboard Cost: The Hidden Expense
Both CPUs require new Z890 or B860 motherboards, which fundamentally changes the value equation for these processors.
I found that a decent Z890 motherboard adds at least $200-300 to your build cost, significantly impacting the total system price.
This platform cost issue is frequently mentioned in community discussions as a major barrier to Arrow Lake adoption.
When factoring in motherboard costs, the total platform investment often exceeds $500-600, putting these processors in competition with much higher-tier alternatives.
The mandatory platform upgrade makes these processors less attractive to budget-conscious builders who could achieve similar performance with existing platforms.
Intel Core Ultra 5 235 vs 245K Benchmarks
After months of testing, here’s how these processors actually perform in real-world scenarios.
The benchmark results reveal an interesting story of architectural strengths and weaknesses that vary significantly by workload.
Cinebench R24 Multi-Core Performance
According to Tech Notice testing, the Core Ultra 5 235 achieved 115 points in single-core and 1,016 points in multi-core performance.
The 245K scored significantly higher with 133 points single-core and 1,481 points multi-core, representing a 45% improvement in multi-threaded performance.
This substantial difference highlights how the 245K’s higher clock speeds and power budget translate to measurable performance gains in heavily threaded workloads.
Geekbench 6 Single and Multi-Core Results
In Geekbench 6, the performance gap narrows considerably between these processors.
The 235 scored 2,980 single-core and 18,318 multi-core, while the 245K achieved 3,016 single-core and 18,640 multi-core.
I was surprised by how close these scores are, with the 245K showing only marginal improvements despite its significant price premium.
This suggests that Geekbench’s testing methodology may not fully stress the processors in ways that highlight their clock speed differences.
Content Creation Performance: Where Arrow Lake Shines
For content creators, both processors deliver impressive performance that showcases the strength of the new architecture.
The combination of powerful E-cores and improved P-cores allows these processors to excel in heavily multi-threaded creative applications.
Photoshop Creative Performance
In Pugetbench for Photoshop, the Core Ultra 5 235 scored an impressive 9,852 overall points.
Surprisingly, the 245K scored slightly lower at 9,294 points, demonstrating that higher clocks don’t always translate to better real-world creative performance.
This unexpected result suggests that Photoshop’s workload characteristics favor the 235’s more balanced approach to power and performance.
I’ve found that Photoshop performance often depends more on memory subsystem efficiency than raw computational power.
Lightroom Classic Photo Editing
Lightroom Classic performance clearly favors the Core Ultra 5 235 with 1,508 overall points compared to the 245K’s 1,401 points.
The 235’s active task performance is particularly impressive at 93.3 points versus 87.8 for the 245K.
This 7% performance advantage for the lower-power processor highlights how application optimization can override raw specification advantages.
I believe this result stems from Lightroom’s sensitivity to memory and cache performance rather than pure processing power.
Premiere Pro Video Editing Performance
For video editors, both processors show remarkably competitive performance in Premiere Pro benchmarks.
The 235 achieved 14,668 extended overall score, while the 245K scored nearly identical at 14,699.
What I appreciate about these results is how efficiently the integrated Intel Xe-LPG graphics handle H.264 and H.265 encoding tasks.
The iGPU provides significant advantages for video workflow acceleration compared to AMD processors that lack integrated graphics.
Long GOP encoding performance shows where the hardware acceleration really shines, with both processors delivering excellent results.
DaVinci Resolve Video Performance
DaVinci Resolve testing reveals interesting performance characteristics for both processors.
The 235 achieved 10,429 standard overall score and 10,433 extended overall score, while the 245K scored lower at 9,540 and 9,742 respectively.
This represents another scenario where the efficient 235 outperforms its higher-power sibling.
I’ve observed that DaVinci Resolve’s performance characteristics favor consistent power delivery over peak performance bursts.
The fusion performance particularly benefits from the 235’s thermal characteristics, maintaining better sustained performance.
3D Rendering and Blender Performance
For 3D rendering workloads, the 245K demonstrates its advantage with higher sustained clock speeds.
In Blender 3.6, the 245K scored 159.1 points in Monster, 96.6 in Junkshop, and 77.8 in Classroom scenes.
The 235 delivered respectable results with 146.4, 85.3, and 62.2 points respectively, showing 8-25% lower performance across different scene complexities.
This represents one of the clearest scenarios where the 245K’s higher power budget translates to meaningful performance advantages.
V-Ray CPU Rendering Performance
V-Ray CPU testing shows substantial performance differences between the two processors.
The 245K achieved 17,510 points compared to the 235’s 14,850 points, representing an 18% performance advantage.
This significant gap demonstrates how sustained multi-threaded workloads benefit from the 245K’s higher power budget and clock speeds.
For professional rendering workflows, this performance difference could translate to meaningful time savings on large projects.
Intel Core Ultra 5 235 vs 245K Power Consumption
Power efficiency represents one of the most significant improvements in the Arrow Lake architecture.
The Core Ultra 5 235 operates with a base power of 65W and maximum turbo power of 121W, making it remarkably efficient.
In contrast, the 245K has a base power of 125W and maximum turbo power of 159W, representing significantly higher power consumption.
Performance measurements indicate sustained loads typically see around 135W for the 245K, though its official maximum reaches 159W.
I’ve been impressed by how quiet my system remains even under heavy workloads with the 235’s thermal characteristics.
The power efficiency gains stem from the advanced TSMC N3B process node, which allows Intel to achieve better performance-per-watt than previous generations.
These improvements make both processors substantially more efficient than their 13th and 14th generation predecessors.
Gaming Performance: Arrow Lake’s Achilles’ Heel
Gaming performance represents the most disappointing aspect of the Arrow Lake architecture.
Despite strong single-core performance and high clock speeds, both processors struggle in gaming scenarios compared to expectations.
The fundamental issue stems from the chiplet architecture’s impact on memory and cache latency, which gaming workloads are particularly sensitive to.
Memory latency has increased from approximately 45ns on previous Intel designs to 65-70ns on Arrow Lake, creating a significant bottleneck.
Intel 245K vs AMD 9600X Gaming Comparison
When compared to the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X, the Core Ultra 5 245K consistently underperforms in gaming benchmarks.
Community reports suggest the 245K delivers 9-12% lower gaming performance on average compared to the Ryzen 5 9600X.
This performance deficit is particularly problematic given that the AMD processor is typically priced lower and offers better platform value.
The AMD AM5 platform supports cheaper motherboards and has a track record of longer socket longevity for future upgrades.
Reddit discussions frequently describe the 245K as a “complete dud” for gaming applications, with users recommending AMD alternatives instead.
Why is Arrow Lake Bad for Gaming?
The gaming performance regression stems directly from architectural choices made in the Arrow Lake design.
The move to a chiplet architecture places the memory controller on a separate SoC tile from the CPU cores, increasing access latency.
While productivity applications can effectively hide this latency through parallel processing, gaming workloads require rapid sequential memory access.
This creates a situation where high clock speeds cannot compensate for the fundamental latency penalty imposed by the chiplet design.
Intel appears to have prioritized manufacturing efficiency and architectural flexibility over the ultra-low latency that gaming applications demand.
Community sentiment suggests this represents Intel’s “Zen 1 moment” – an architectural transition that improves some aspects while regressing others.
Intel vs AMD CPU Battle 2025: Competitive Analysis
The competitive landscape in 2025 shows a clear division between Intel and AMD’s strengths and weaknesses.
Intel focuses on productivity performance and power efficiency with Arrow Lake, while AMD emphasizes gaming performance and platform value.
Intel Core Ultra 5 245K vs AMD Ryzen 7 9700X
Against the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K shows competitive productivity performance but struggles in gaming scenarios.
The 245K delivers up to 50% better performance in rendering tasks compared to similar-priced AMD alternatives.
However, the total platform cost including motherboard makes Intel systems significantly more expensive to build.
AMD’s AM5 platform compatibility with budget A620 motherboards provides substantial cost advantages for budget-conscious builders.
Intel 235 vs 14600K Comparison
Comparing the newer 235 against Intel’s own Core i5-14600K reveals interesting trade-offs.
The 14600K offers significantly better gaming performance and can utilize existing LGA1700 motherboards.
However, the 235 provides superior power efficiency and runs much cooler than the problematic 13th/14th generation processors.
Platform longevity favors the 235 with its newer socket and support for future Intel generations.
The reliability concerns surrounding 13th/14th generation processors make the 235 a safer long-term choice despite performance compromises.
Core Ultra 5 235 vs 245K: Detailed Pros and Cons
After extensive testing, here’s my detailed analysis of each processor’s strengths and weaknesses.
Intel Core Ultra 5 235 Pros
- Exceptional power efficiency with just 65W base power and 121W maximum turbo power consumption.
- Strong multi-core performance that often matches or exceeds the 245K in certain productivity applications.
- Includes a functional stock cooler that adequately handles the processor’s thermal requirements.
- Operates very quietly and maintains low temperatures even under sustained workloads.
- Lower initial purchase price compared to the 245K while delivering competitive performance in many scenarios.
- Better suited for compact and small form factor builds where thermal constraints matter.
Intel Core Ultra 5 235 Cons
- Requires expensive new LGA1851 motherboard, significantly impacting total system cost.
- Lower single-core and peak multi-core performance compared to the 245K in demanding applications.
- Limited overclocking capabilities restrict performance tuning options for enthusiasts.
- Gaming performance suffers from the same architectural latency issues affecting all Arrow Lake processors.
- Memory controller limitations restrict DDR5 support to 6400 MT/s without boost profile capabilities.
Intel Core Ultra 5 245K Pros
- Superior performance across most productivity and content creation benchmarks.
- Higher single-core performance provides better responsiveness in applications and multitasking scenarios.
- Unlocked multiplier enables overclocking for additional performance gains.
- Supports boost profile for potential DDR5 8000 MT/s memory speeds with compatible hardware.
- Better suited for demanding professional workloads requiring maximum computational performance.
- More future-proof for applications that may demand higher performance as software evolves.
Intel Core Ultra 5 245K Cons
- Significantly higher power consumption with 125W base and 159W maximum turbo power requirements.
- More expensive initial purchase price creates a larger budget impact for system builders.
- Requires robust cooling solution to handle thermal output, adding additional system cost.
- Gaming performance remains disappointing compared to similarly-priced AMD alternatives.
- High platform entry cost due to mandatory expensive Z890 motherboard requirement.
- Total system cost often exceeds more powerful alternatives when factoring in all component requirements.
Who Should Buy Intel Core Ultra 5 235 vs 245K
The choice between these processors depends heavily on your specific use case and budget constraints.
Buy the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 if:
- You’re building a power-efficient workstation focused primarily on content creation and productivity applications.
- Small form factor builds where thermal management and power consumption are critical considerations.
- Content creators working with photo editing, light video production, and general office productivity tasks.
- Budget-conscious builders who want modern features but need to minimize overall system cost.
- Users prioritizing quiet operation and low heat output over maximum performance.
- Builders creating energy-efficient systems for extended operation periods.
Buy the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K if:
- Maximum multi-core performance for heavy rendering and professional content creation workloads is your priority.
- Professional content creators using Blender, complex video editing, and similar demanding applications regularly.
- You plan to overclock the processor to extract additional performance and have adequate cooling solutions.
- Productivity workflows where the performance difference justifies the higher power consumption and cost.
- Users who can benefit from the boost profile’s potential for DDR5 8000 MT/s memory support.
Consider AMD Alternatives Instead if:
- Gaming performance is your primary concern – AMD Ryzen 5 9600X consistently delivers superior gaming value.
- You’re building on a tight budget and want to avoid the expensive LGA1851 motherboard requirement.
- Long-term socket support and future upgrade flexibility are important considerations for your build.
- You prefer the overall platform value and ecosystem that AMD’s AM5 socket provides.
- Mixed gaming and productivity workloads where X3D processors offer the best balanced performance.
- Community feedback consistently points toward AMD offering better price-to-performance ratios for most use cases.
Best Budget CPU for Rendering vs Gaming Priorities
The mid-range CPU market in 2025 presents clear distinctions between rendering and gaming-optimized options.
For rendering workloads, Intel’s Arrow Lake processors provide competitive multi-core performance with excellent efficiency.
Gaming-focused builds consistently favor AMD alternatives due to their superior frame rate delivery and platform value.
The Intel NPU AI Boost feature offers 13 TOPS of AI acceleration, potentially valuable for future creative applications.
DDR5 6400 MT/s support provides adequate memory bandwidth for most current applications and games.
Community sentiment suggests waiting for Nova Lake generation to address current gaming performance limitations.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Intel Core Ultra 5 245K good for gaming?
The Core Ultra 5 245K delivers disappointing gaming performance compared to similarly-priced AMD alternatives like the Ryzen 5 9600X.
The chiplet architecture introduces higher memory latency (65-70ns vs 45ns on previous Intel designs) that particularly affects gaming workloads.
Community reports suggest 9-12% lower gaming performance compared to AMD competitors, making it a poor choice for gaming-focused builds.
While it offers strong productivity performance, gamers should consider AMD alternatives for better value and performance.
Intel Core Ultra 5 235 vs 245K which is better?
The choice depends entirely on your priorities: the 235 excels in efficiency and value, while the 245K provides higher peak performance.
For power-efficient builds and content creation, the 235 offers excellent performance-per-watt and includes a cooler.
The 245K delivers 15-45% better performance in demanding applications but consumes significantly more power and costs more.
Both processors require expensive new motherboards, which impacts their overall value proposition compared to existing platform alternatives.
Why is Arrow Lake bad for gaming?
Arrow Lake’s gaming problems stem from its chiplet architecture placing the memory controller on a separate SoC tile from the CPU cores.
This design increases memory access latency from approximately 45ns on previous Intel monolithic designs to 65-70ns on Arrow Lake.
Gaming workloads are particularly sensitive to memory latency because they require rapid sequential data access patterns.
While productivity applications can hide this latency through parallel processing, games cannot effectively work around the increased access times.
Intel prioritized manufacturing efficiency and architectural flexibility over the ultra-low latency that gaming applications demand.
What motherboard do I need for Arrow Lake?
Arrow Lake processors require motherboards with the new FCLGA1851 socket, specifically Z890 chipset for overclocking or B860 for standard operation.
Older LGA1700 motherboards from 12th/13th/14th generation Intel processors are completely incompatible with these processors.
Z890 motherboards typically cost $200-400, significantly impacting the total system cost and affecting the processors’ value proposition.
The mandatory platform upgrade makes these processors less attractive for budget builds compared to existing socket options.
How much power does the Intel 245K use?
The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K has a Processor Base Power of 125W and Maximum Turbo Power of 159W according to official specifications.
Under sustained loads, power draw is observed to be around 135W, though it can reach the full 159W maximum under peak conditions.
This represents significantly higher power consumption compared to the 235’s 65W base and 121W maximum turbo power ratings.
The higher power consumption requires robust cooling solutions and contributes to increased system operating costs.
Does the Core Ultra 5 235 come with a cooler?
Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 includes a stock cooler that adequately handles its 65W base power requirement.
The included cooler provides functional cooling but upgrading to a $20-30 aftermarket solution offers better thermal performance and quieter operation.
This represents additional value since the 245K does not include a cooler and requires a more capable cooling solution for its higher power output.
The stock cooler makes the 235 more attractive for budget builds where every component cost matters.
Is the Core Ultra 5 235 worth it?
The Core Ultra 5 235 offers excellent efficiency and competitive productivity performance, but the mandatory expensive motherboard upgrade affects its value.
For new builds focused on content creation and power efficiency, it provides compelling performance-per-watt characteristics.
However, the total platform cost often makes alternatives like AMD’s AM5 ecosystem more attractive for budget-conscious builders.
Consider it if you’re building a completely new system and prioritize efficiency, but explore AMD options for better gaming value.
Best alternatives to Intel Core Ultra 5 245K
For gaming performance, the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X consistently delivers superior frame rates and better platform value.
Content creators might consider the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X for competitive multi-core performance with lower platform costs.
Budget-conscious builders should evaluate the Intel Core i5-14600K for better price-to-performance on existing platforms.
AMD’s AM5 platform offers longer socket longevity and cheaper motherboard options for better long-term value.
Intel Core Ultra 5 245K vs i5-14600K
The 245K offers better power efficiency and modern features, while the 14600K provides superior gaming performance and platform compatibility.
Platform costs strongly favor the 14600K since it works with existing LGA1700 motherboards, reducing total system cost.
The 245K delivers competitive productivity performance but struggles in gaming scenarios where the 14600K often performs better.
Long-term considerations favor the 245K for socket longevity, but immediate value and performance favor the 14600K.
What is the price of Intel Core Ultra 5 245K?
The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K has an MSRP of $309-319, while the 235 is priced at $247-257.
Real-world pricing varies by retailer and availability, with street prices often differing from official MSRP.
Remember to factor in the mandatory $200-400 cost of a new LGA1851 motherboard when calculating total system investment.
The combined CPU and motherboard cost often exceeds $500-700, putting these processors in competition with higher-tier alternatives.
AMD Ryzen 5 9600X review comparison
The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X consistently outperforms both Arrow Lake processors in gaming scenarios while offering better platform value.
AMD’s 6-core/12-thread design with SMT provides more flexible thread allocation compared to Arrow Lake’s 14-core/14-thread configuration.
Platform costs favor AMD with cheaper AM5 motherboards and longer socket support history for future upgrades.
For mixed gaming and productivity workloads, the 9600X often provides better balanced performance than Arrow Lake alternatives.
Mid-range desktop CPU comparison 2025
The 2025 mid-range market shows clear segmentation between Intel’s productivity focus and AMD’s gaming performance strengths.
Total platform cost, not just CPU price, determines real-world value in this competitive segment.
Intel offers superior AI acceleration and integrated graphics capabilities, while AMD provides better gaming performance and platform longevity.
Future-proofing considerations favor platforms with established upgrade paths and community support rather than first-generation architectures.
Future-proof CPU build considerations
Both Arrow Lake processors offer modern features like DDR5 6400 MT/s support, PCIe 5.0 connectivity, and integrated AI acceleration.
AMD’s track record of longer socket support suggests better long-term upgrade options compared to Intel’s recent socket changes.
The LGA1851 socket is new and unproven for longevity, while AM5 has demonstrated commitment to multi-generation support.
Consider the total platform ecosystem and upgrade path when making future-proof decisions rather than focusing solely on current performance.
Conclusion: Arrow Lake’s Split Verdict
After two months of comprehensive testing, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and 245K represent a fascinating study in architectural trade-offs.
The Core Ultra 5 235 emerges as the efficiency champion, delivering impressive productivity performance within a remarkable 65W base power envelope.
I recommend the 235 specifically for content creators building compact, quiet systems where power consumption and thermal management are critical considerations.
Its ability to match or exceed the 245K in certain applications while consuming half the power makes it an excellent choice for specialized workloads.
The Core Ultra 5 245K functions as a flawed powerhouse that excels in multi-threaded productivity but disappoints in its target gaming market.
For maximum content creation performance, the 245K delivers meaningful advantages in demanding applications like Blender and V-Ray rendering.
However, its gaming performance regression makes it unsuitable for the traditional Core i5 audience that prioritized versatile performance.
The mandatory LGA1851 motherboard upgrade fundamentally changes the value proposition for both processors.
Platform costs of $200-400 for Z890 motherboards transform these processors from budget-friendly options into premium system investments.
Community sentiment consistently points toward AMD alternatives offering superior gaming value and platform longevity.
In my experience, Arrow Lake represents Intel’s successful transition to modern manufacturing and efficient architectures.
Unfortunately, this architectural evolution comes at the cost of the low-latency gaming performance that made Intel’s previous generations appealing.
Choose the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 if you prioritize cutting-edge efficiency for productivity workloads and can absorb the platform cost.
Select the 245K only if you need maximum multi-threaded performance for professional content creation and gaming performance is secondary.
For gaming-focused builds or budget-conscious systems, AMD’s Ryzen 5 9600X and AM5 platform provide demonstrably better value and performance.
