The latest generation of Intel processors promises advancements in both performance and efficiency. With increasing competition in the CPU market, each new release is scrutinized for gains in productivity, gaming, and power consumption.
We will examine the Core Ultra 5 245K, exploring its specifications, benchmarking results, and real-world performance to determine where it stands against rival offerings.
Specifications of the Core Ultra 5 245K
Intel’s Core Ultra 5 245K replaces the Core i5 14600K and carries a suggested price of $310. It features six Performance Cores (P-cores) with six threads—Intel has removed Hyper-Threading on these cores—and they run at a base frequency of 4.2GHz with a boost up to 5.2GHz, a 2% drop compared to its predecessor.
The processor also includes eight efficiency cores (E cores) without SMT, delivering eight threads. These E cores have a base of 3.6GHz and can boost to 4.6GHz, a 15% increase versus the previous generation. On die cache totals 24MB of L3 and 26MB of L2, allocated as 3MB L2 per P core and 4MB per E core cluster (four cores each).
The base TDP is 125W, rising to 159W under Turbo, and all announced KCK models support dual channel DDR5 5600 UDM or DDR5 6400 memory. I/O consists of twenty PCIe 5.0 lanes, four PCIe 4.0 lanes, and a DMI 4.0×8 link to the chipset. As a K series part, it comes unlocked for overclocking.
Test System and Methodology
For consistency, testing employed an all in one liquid cooler, the Core Ultra 5 245K, installed on a high end Z series motherboard, and fast UDM equipped DDR5 7200 memory. Benchmarks ran within stock power limits to reflect out of the box performance. Cinebench R23 clock monitoring revealed average frequencies of 4.6GHz on the E cores and 5.0GHz on the P cores, peaking at just 66 °C—well below the 105 °C TJmax.
All gaming tests were conducted at 1080p with high settings to isolate CPU differences and productivity workloads utilizing industry standard software. Power draw was measured at the EPS12V rails for CPU load, and frame time logging captured 1% lows alongside averages.
Cinebench and Multicore Productivity
In Cinebench R23 multicore, the 245K proved 9% faster than the 14600K and 26% quicker than the Ryzen 7 9700X, despite a slightly lower price. Single core performance matched the 9700X at 137 points, marking a 12% uplift over the 14600K.
This demonstrates that for heavily threaded workloads like rendering and simulation, the 245K offers tangible gains. We found that, under sustained loads, the balanced efficiency and performance cores maintain high clocks without thermal throttling, making it a strong contender if your primary focus is multithreaded productivity.
Compression and Decompression Performance
Shifting to 7 Zip, the Core Ultra 5 245K’s compression speeds were a bit underwhelming. It trailed the 14600K slightly and managed only an 8% lead over the 9700X—hardly a next gen leap. Decompression fared worse: performance aligned with older CPUs like the 12700K and 5800X3D, resulting in 12% slower speeds than the 9700X and 133% slower than the 14600K.
If your daily tasks involve heavy archive handling, you might notice that the 245K isn’t the standout choice here. In my tests, you’ll find that gains in most other productivity tests don’t translate to compression workloads.
Rendering Benchmarks
Rendering in Blender and Corona, 10 highlighted the strengths of the new architecture. Blender Open Data rendering was 7% faster than the 14600K and 16% quicker than the 9700X. Corona 10 mirrored this, with the 245K beating the 14600K by 7% and the 9700X by 11%. Upon rendering complex scenes, the smoother scaling across both P and E cores makes a difference, reducing total render times noticeably. For content creators on a budget, these results underscore that the 245K is one of the best value options for CPU bound 3D work.
Content Creation Applications
In Adobe Photoshop 2025, with optimizations coming in a future Windows 11 update, the 245K delivered 8% faster performance than the 14600K but remained 10% behind the 9700X. Premiere Pro 2024 fared better: the 245K matched the 14700K, outperforming the 14600K by 11% and the 9700X by 14%.
If you edit video regularly, you’ll appreciate how smoothly the timeline scrubs and exports complete faster than on older generation hardware. We’ve noticed in our workflow that the responsiveness in timeline playback and effects rendering feels quite competitive.
Gaming Performance Across Titles
Gaming proved challenging. In Star Wars Jedi: Survivor at 1080p, the 245K averaged 142fps—7% slower than the 14600K and 12% slower than the 9700X. The Last of Us Part I saw parity with the 9700X at 180fps, but only a 2% uplift over the 14600K. Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty was disappointing, trailing the 12600K by 16% and the 14600K by 16%, while the 9700X outperformed it by 17%.
Other titles like ACC and Remnant II also showed 245K results on par with a 12700K. Only a few games, such as Starfield and Star Wars Outlaws, saw the 245K match or slightly exceeded expectations, but these cases were rare. If you’re a gamer, you’ll often find that older Intel or AMD parts deliver more consistent frame rate experiences.
Power Efficiency in Gaming
On the power front, the power draw was notably lower in some titles. In Cyberpunk 2077, the 245K consumed just 73W—133% less than the 9700X, though at a much lower performance. In The Last of Us Part I, power use matched the 9700X for similar performance, and compared to the 14600K, power draw was down 38% while delivering a few percent more fps.
For those with high electricity costs or small form factor builds, this efficiency could be appealing. We observed that under sustained gaming loads, thermals remained manageable, allowing you to adopt smaller coolers or quieter fan curves.
Cost Per Frame Analysis
Evaluating cost per frame, the 245K doesn’t shine. At current street prices, it’s 14% more expensive per frame than the 9700X and 36% more than the 14600K or 7700X. Even when compared to the 7800X3D at inflated market rates, the 245K only shows a 9% advantage.
If you factor in that the 7800X3D once sold for $340, delivering a cost per frame of $165, the 245K looks far less compelling. In my builds, balancing budget and performance, I find it hard to justify the 245K’s premium when several alternatives deliver better gaming value.
Key-Takeaways
We had hoped that the Core Ultra 5 245K would emerge as a hidden gem, but it’s a mixed bag. Productivity workloads overall favor the 245K, especially in rendering tasks, and power efficiency is near AMD’s levels. Yet compression, decompression, and gaming performance often lag behind both Intel’s previous generation and competing Zen 5 parts.
For gamers, only a significant price drop—around $250—would make the 245K an option, and even then, you’d be choosing it over the 14600K at best. Content creators focusing on core heavy tasks may find value here, but for the average enthusiast, there are better buys. I’m eager to see if Intel addresses Arrow Lake’s shortcomings in future updates, but until then, the Core Ultra 5 245K remains hard to recommend.
Check Our Other Intel Chips Articles:
- Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Review And Performance Breakdown (2025)
- Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D: In-Depth Gaming Performance and Benchmark Comparison
- Intel Core i5-13400F Gaming Performance: Still Worth It in 2025?
- Intel Core i9‑14900K vs. AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D: Power Profiles & Gaming Benchmarks
- Intel Core i9 14900K: Specs, Benchmarks, and Competitor Comparison
