OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core Ultra 5 245K review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£190PassMark multi-core score:42989N. of physical cores:14CPU boost clock speed:5.2 GHzCPU socket:LGA1851TDP (Thermal design power):125 W

Intel Core Ultra 5 245K Review: Compare 168 technical specifications, 19 expert and video reviews and 9 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

8.2/10

Overall score

Score
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists, owners and ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 15%, Sentiment score 10%, User score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 96% of models
Score components

40%

8.5

Technical score

25%

7.6

Reviews score

15%

8.4

List score

10%

8.4

Sentiment score

10%

?

User scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 8.4, the mark of a weaker model in this category

★Better than 96% of processors
8.6

Value for money

Value for money
8.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 98% of models
Score components

70%

8.2

Overall score

30%

9.5

Price

★Better than 98%
8.5

Technical score

Technical score
8.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 93% of models
Score components

60%

8.8

Performance

18%

8.3

Architecture

10%

9.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.5

Platform

1%

8.6

Integrated graphics

★Better than 93%
7.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 50% of models

80%

7.1

Average grade

20%

9.2

Popularity

Grades by review (19)
10 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 9 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
▲Better than 50%
?

User score

User score
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
No ratings from across the web yet, so it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
No ratings from across the web yet
8.4

List score

List score
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 15% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (9)
List score: in 9 of 70 lists (13%)
★Better than 98%
  • No image
No image
Best prices
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Processors model ranking

Ranked #30 of 558 models in Processors (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core Ultra 5 245K

Technical score
Technical score
8.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 93% of models
Score components:

60%

8.8

Performance

18%

8.3

Architecture

10%

9.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.5

Platform

1%

8.6

Integrated graphics

8.5
Reviews score
7.6
User score
?
List score
8.4
Value for money
Value for money
8.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 98% of models
Score components:

70%

8.2

Overall score

30%

9.5

Price

8.6
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1851
This processor uses the LGA1851 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 98.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% of processors.
Chipset
Z890, B860, H810
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 88.2% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
N. of physical cores
14
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 14 CPU cores, which is more than 85.7% of processors and equal to 4.3% of processors.
CPU threads
14
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 14 CPU threads, which is more than 67.3% of processors and equal to 1.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
5.2 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.2 GHz which is higher than that of 88.9% of processors and equal to that of 3% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
6x 4.2 GHz & 8x 3.6 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 6x4.2 GHz & 8x3.6 GHz which is higher than that of 95.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
42,989
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 42,989 in PassMark, which is higher than 93.5% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
3 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 3 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 94.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 3 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 3 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 95.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
L3 cache
24 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 24 MB which is larger than that of 80.1% of processors and equal to that of 5.9% of processors.
L2 cache
26 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 26 MB which is larger than that of 94.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
L1 cache
?
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR5, which is newer than that of 64.2% of processors and equal to that of 12.8% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
6,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 6,400 MHz, which is higher than that of 82.6% of processors and equal to 8% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-6400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-6400 MHz, which is higher than that of 86.6% of processors and equal to 2.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
256 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 256 GB of memory, which is more than 89% of processors and equal to 8.8% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Xe Graphics 64EU
Integrated GPU execution units
64
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 64 GPU execution units, which is more than 86.7% of processors and equal to 3.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 72.1% of processors and equal to 0.8% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
125 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 125 W which is higher than that of 91.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
125 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 125 W which is higher than that of 91.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
159 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 159 W which is higher than that of 86.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
?
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel Core Ultra 5 245K vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 3.75x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (42,989 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    42,989 vs 11,469
  • 84.2% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,713 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,713 vs 2,558
  • 2.15x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,295 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,295 vs 1,535
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 8 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (14 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    14 vs 6
  • 18.2% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • 8.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (26 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    26 MB vs 3 MB
  • 13.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 50% of models

    80%

    7.1

    Average grade

    20%

    9.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (19)
    10 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 9 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
    7.6 vs 6.7
  • 17.4% better value for money
    Intel Core Ultra 5 245K has better value for money than the average processor (8.6 vs 7.3).
    8.6 vs 7.33
  • 16.7% higher sentiment score
    8.4 vs 7.2
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1851 vs FP5).
    LGA1851 vs FP5
  • 4 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2024 vs 2020).
    2024 vs 2020
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • 3.75x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (42,989 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    42,989 vs 11,469
  • 84.2% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,713 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,713 vs 2,558
  • 2.15x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,295 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,295 vs 1,535
  • 8 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (14 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    14 vs 6
  • 18.2% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x4.2 GHz & 8x3.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    6x4.2 GHz & 8x3.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 6 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (14 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    14 vs 8
  • 2 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    6 vs 4
  • 14 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (42 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    42 vs 28
  • 2x higher bus transfer rate
    This processor has a higher bus transfer rate than the average processor (16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 8.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (26 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    26 MB vs 3 MB
  • 6x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 75% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (3 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    3 nm vs 12 nm
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 3 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 3 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • 2.67x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (24 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    24 MB vs 9 MB
  • 3.6x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (17.8 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    17.8 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    24 vs 16
  • 4x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (256 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    256 GB vs 64 GB
  • 2.18x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (102.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    102.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 2x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (6400 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    6,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-6400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-6,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 2.67x more GPU execution units
    This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (64 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    64 vs 24
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 5 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, Secure Key, TXT, CET, MBEC, TME-MK vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, Secure Key, TXT, CET, MBEC, TME-MK vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 2.78x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    125 W vs 45 W
  • 2.48x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (159 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    159 W vs 64 W
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 2.78x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    125 W vs 45 W
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel Xe Graphics 64EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Xe Graphics 64EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, Secure Key, TXT, CET, MBEC, TME-MK vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, Secure Key, TXT, CET, MBEC, TME-MK vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel Xe Graphics 64EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Xe Graphics 64EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 2.78x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    125 W vs 45 W
  • 2.48x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (159 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    159 W vs 64 W
  • 2.78x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    125 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

4.0
TechArc
≈ estimated
10/11/2025
Overclocking test · benchmarks, gaming and value
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 5 245K gains little from overclocking, and its poor value against AMD and cheaper Intel platforms rules it out.
4.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
28/10/2024
Hands-on review · gaming, productivity and value tests
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 5 245K is strong only in heavy productivity, but weak gaming and poor value make it hard to recommend.
5.0
Hardware Canucks
≈ estimated
24/10/2024
Full performance review · gaming, power and multi-core tests
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K has strong multi-core speed and low power draw, but no real gaming gain, so it is not recommended now.
9.0
goldfries
≈ estimated
26/11/2025
Hands-on review · gaming and productivity tests, bought by the reviewer
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 5 245K offers strong performance per dollar, with 1080p and the upgrade path as minor drawbacks.
6.0
The FPS Review
≈ estimated
08/11/2024
Launch review summary · benchmarks and gaming tests
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 5 245K is weak for gaming and decent for multi-threaded work, but AMD remains the better value overall.
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded
Shop video
Shop video

What reviewers agree on

Based on 10 · 8

Cool, efficient and great for productivity, but gaming performance is weak and the dead-end socket is a real drawback.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
pcguide.com
✓ explicit
24/10/2024
Hands-on review · Budget Arrow Lake
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K runs cool and draws little power, with strong multi-core speed, but weak gaming results make it hard to recommend.
7.0
en.overclocking.com
≈ estimated
24/10/2024
Launch review · Arrow Lake debut
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K adds Arrow Lake's new socket and CUDIMM DDR5 support, but this launch review relies on Intel's slides for its performance claims.
8.0
hardwarecooking.fr
≈ estimated
24/10/2024
Lab test · Mid-range Arrow Lake
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K is solid in applications and efficient on power, but its gaming results disappoint, and AMD's Ryzen 7 7800X3D still leads in games.
9.0
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
24/10/2024
Full review · Arrow Lake mid-range
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K pairs 14 cores with a 125W rating, but its new LGA 1851 socket means upgrading requires a new motherboard.
9.0
gameit.es
≈ estimated
04/12/2024
Hands-on test · Mid-range processor
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K uses less power and runs cooler than its predecessor, but its new socket needs a Z890 motherboard.
8.9
hardzone.es
✓ explicit
24/10/2024
Hands-on test · Power and heat
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K draws about 120 W and reaches 57°C under full load, a cool, efficient chip with fewer threads than its predecessor.
10
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
24/10/2024
Hands-on review · Overclocking
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K is efficient and overclocks to 5 GHz on its six performance cores, but gains over the last generation are small.
7.0
fanaticosdelhardware.com
≈ estimated
12/06/2025
Hands-on test · Performance and efficiency
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K is slightly more efficient than the Core i5-14600K, but matches it in speed and needs a new board, so upgrading is hard to justify.
6.8
global.techradar.com
✓ explicit
31/10/2024
Lab test · Mid-range chip
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K is good for productivity, but it is slower in games than the Core i5-14600K and isn't worth upgrading from Intel 12th gen or newer.
7.0
tech.everyeye.it
≈ estimated
24/10/2024
Hands-on test · Arrow Lake debut
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K targets lower power draw and cooler running, but the Arrow Lake platform has yet to prove itself.

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core Ultra 5 245K

  • 14 cores and 14 threads cope well with heavy multitasking.
  • A 5.2 GHz boost clock keeps single tasks quick.
  • DDR5 memory up to 6400 MHz keeps data moving.
  • The unlocked multiplier lets you tune the clock speed.
  • Integrated graphics with 64 execution units handles a desktop without a graphics card.
  • A 3 nm process packs 17.8 billion transistors into the chip.

What we don't like about Intel Core Ultra 5 245K

  • Base power of 125 W and boost of 159 W need a good cooler.
  • No cooler is included, so you need to buy one.
  • It has no multithreading, so each core runs one thread at a time.
  • It can reach 105 °C under heavy load.

Verdict

Fourteen cores and a fast clock make the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K a practical pick for a mid-range gaming or office PC. Its boost clock reaches 5.2 GHz, and it is made on a 3 nm process. Six performance cores share the work with eight smaller cores, which handle lighter tasks. The chip has 26 MB of L2 cache and 24 MB of L3 cache, and it runs DDR5 memory up to 6400 MHz. Its integrated graphics has 64 execution units, enough for everyday desktop use. The unlocked multiplier lets you raise the speed yourself. The trade-off is power: 125 W base and 159 W at boost. It suits a buyer who wants a fast chip for a mid-range PC and does not mind buying a cooler.

Compare Intel Core Ultra 5 245K with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core Ultra 5 245K and other processors

No results found