Intel Core Ultra 5 245K Review

I can’t think about mid-range processors without thinking back to chips like the Intel Core i5-2500K. That CPU launched at just $216 and became one of the most legendary gaming processors for a decade. Fast forward 13 years, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K just does not carry on its legacy. At $309, it’s essentially the same price as the Intel Core i5-2500K when counting for inflation, but does not deliver a substantial uplift in gaming performance compared to its predecessor. Instead, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K really only shines in creative workloads like Blender.

The problem is that creative professionals probably aren’t going to settle for a mid-range CPU like the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K, they’re going to go for the much more powerful Core Ultra 9 285K. That leaves the Core Ultra 5 245K in a weird spot, because most PC gamers can save some cash and get a last-gen processor for a better gaming experience.

Specs and Features

Just like the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, the Core Ultra 5 245K is built on Intel’s new Arrow Lake architecture. This uses the same big.LITTLE design philosophy Intel has been using on its desktop processors since the Alder Lake powered Core i9-12900K back in 2021. Basically, this means Intel pairs ‘big’ Performance Cores (P-Cores) that handle heavy workloads, with ‘LITTLE’ Efficiency Cores that take care of background tasks, allowing the P-Cores to work more efficiently.

Intel has thrown a wrench into this setup this time around by removing Hyper-Threading from the performance cores. Hyper-Threading is a technology that allows each CPU core to handle two instructions simultaneously, virtually doubling cores with ‘threads’. Intel implemented this technology all the way back in 2002 and it’s become the default method of creating desktop processors. Luckily, the Core Ultra 5 245K still sees significant multi-core performance improvements over the Core i5-14600K, but it could have been even faster with Hyper-Threading enabled.

Instead, Intel focused more on efficiency rather than raw performance. That makes sense – Intel has been in some hot water around CPU power delivery over the last year, so the company should dial back power consumption a bit. And that’s what Intel did; The Core Ultra 5 245K peaks at around 152W under heavy load, compared to 181W from the Core i5-14600K. That’s 20% less power, and it also means you don’t have to worry about your CPU causing a house fire.

The Core Ultra 5 245K peaked at just 77°C in my testing, compared to the blistering 98°C of the 14600K. You’ll still need a substantial cooler to keep the Ultra 5 245K running smoothly, but at least you don’t need to freak out every time you look at your CPU temperature – Intel is finally cooling down.

With that lower power budget, clock speeds are also slightly reduced. Where the last-generation Intel Core i5-14600K had a max Turbo speed of 5.3GHz, the Core Ultra 5 245K only boosts up to 5.2GHz. It’s not much of a difference, but when combined with the loss of Hyper-Threading and a lower power budget, it can have significant consequences on performance, especially in PC games.

Intel also changed the socket for the Core Ultra 5 245K, meaning you won’t be able to use an existing Z790 motherboard. Instead you’ll have to fork over the cash for a new Z890 board on top of the $309 you’re already spending on the Core Ultra 5 245K. These new motherboards do have a few new features, like ECC memory support and up to 20 PCIe 5.0 lanes, but for most people, these are unnecessary features.

Performance

While the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K at least represented a sizable boost in creative performance over the Core i9-14900K, the Core Ultra 5 245K doesn’t fare quite as well against its predecessor. While it is faster in multi-threaded workloads, it’s not much of an increase, which makes its slip in gaming performance even more disappointing.

The Intel Core Ultra 245K scores 25,107 points in Cinebench, compared to 23,746 for the Core i5-14600K. It is much faster than the Ryzen 5 9600X, which scores 15,144 points, but that processor also consumes half as much power. Likewise in Blender, the Intel Core Ultra 5 is able to render the Monster model at 150 samples per second, compared to the Core i5-14600K’s 142 samples. That’s a 5% generational jump, but the more expensive Core Ultra 9 285K marked a 17% jump over its predecessor in the same workload.

In Adobe Premiere Pro, the Core Ultra 5 245K is 7% faster than the 14600K, which is significant for any video editor. However, the Core Ultra 5 245K also sees a performance loss compared to the Core i5-14600K in Adobe Photoshop, to the tune of 6%. Just like the Ultra 9 285K, the Core Ultra 5 245K shines in multi-core workloads, but really suffers in more lightly-threaded workloads like Photoshop and gaming.

I tested Cyberpunk 2077 at 1080p, on the Ultra preset without ray tracing or DLSS, to really let the CPU stretch its legs. However, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K still only managed 165 fps, which is a huge decrease from the Core i5-14600K which managed 178 fps with the same graphics card and drivers. The processor fares a bit better in Total War: Warhammer 3, managing 254 fps, compared to 262 fps in the Core i5-14600K, but that’s still a sizable dip in frame rate.

Intel is hoping to make up for some of this lost gaming performance by adding an NPU (neural processing unit) to boost AI workloads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K has the same NPU as the more expensive Core Ultra 9 285K, which sounds awesome until you realize that it’s also the same one found in last year’s Meteor Lake laptop processors. Given that most enthusiast-class gaming processors like this one are paired with graphics cards that are orders of magnitude faster in AI workloads, it makes little sense to include such a weak NPU in this chip.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K isn’t a bad processor. There aren’t many workloads that won’t run well on this chip. The problem is there are so many processors that can do the same work, but just a bit better. Even if you want to stick with Intel, you’re better off getting a last-generation part and saving some cash – you’ll at least get better gaming performance that way. All you really lose by skipping this generation is a lackluster NPU that most people aren’t going to use anyway.