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 245KF review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£160PassMark multi-core score:43250N. of physical cores:14CPU boost clock speed:5.2 GHzCPU socket:LGA1851TDP (Thermal design power):125 W

Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF Review: Compare 74 technical specifications, 2 expert and video reviews and 4 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF
7.9/10

Overall score

Score
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment 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 93% of models
Score components

40%

8.3

Technical score

25%

7.5

Reviews score

25%

8.2

List score

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

★Better than 93% of processors
8.5

Value for money

Value for money
8.5/ 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 97% of models
Score components

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

★Better than 97%
8.3

Technical score

Technical score
8.3/ 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 90% of models
Score components

60%

8.6

Performance

18%

8.2

Architecture

10%

9.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.6

Power & Thermal

4%

9.3

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

★Better than 90%
7.5

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.5/ 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
▼ Worse than 52% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
1 review, with a printed score. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 52%
8.2

List score

List score
8.2/ 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 25% 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 (4)
List score: in 4 of 83 lists (5%)
★Better than 96%
  • intel-core-ultra-5-245kf
  • intel-core-ultra-5-245kf
  • intel-core-ultra-5-245kf
  • intel-core-ultra-5-245kf
  • intel-core-ultra-5-245kf
intel-core-ultra-5-245kf
intel-core-ultra-5-245kf
intel-core-ultra-5-245kf
intel-core-ultra-5-245kf
intel-core-ultra-5-245kf
Where to buy
    N/A~ £160
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...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF

Technical score
Technical score
8.3/ 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 90% of models
Score components:

60%

8.6

Performance

18%

8.2

Architecture

10%

9.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.6

Power & Thermal

4%

9.3

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

8.3
Reviews score
7.5
List score
8.2
Value for money
Value for money
8.5/ 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 97% of models
Score components:

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

8.5
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
Intel 800 Series
This processor supports Intel 800 Series chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 90.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
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
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMX
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMX instruction sets, which is broader support than 54.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Show more
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
43,250
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 43,250 in PassMark, which is higher than 93.6% of processors.
Show more
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
1,248 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 1,248 KB which is larger than that of 89.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% of processors.
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)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
192 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 192 GB of memory, which is more than 82.2% of processors and equal to 6.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
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)
56 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 56 seconds which is shorter than that of 96.1% of processors and equal to that of 3.9% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 3.77x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (43,250 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    43,250 vs 11,469
  • 3.29x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (17,150 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    17,150 vs 5,209
  • 84.9% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,731 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,731 vs 2,558
  • 2.15x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,307 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,307 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
  • 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
  • 11.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.5/ 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
    ▼ Worse than 52% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    1 review, with a printed score. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.5 vs 6.7
  • 16.1% better value for money
    Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has better value for money than the average processor (8.46 vs 7.3).
    8.46 vs 7.29
  • 5.1% higher list score
    List score
    8.2/ 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 25% 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 (4)
    List score: in 4 of 83 lists (5%)
    8.2 vs 7.8
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1851 vs FP5).
    LGA1851 vs FP5
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, VAES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA).
    AES, VAES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • 4 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2024 vs 2020).
    October 2024
    2024 vs 2020
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 3.77x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (43,250 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    43,250 vs 11,469
  • 3.29x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (17,150 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    17,150 vs 5,209
  • 84.9% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,731 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,731 vs 2,558
  • 2.15x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,307 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,307 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
  • 4 wider front-end design
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    8 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
  • 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.
    E-core cluster: 4 MB shared
    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.
    P-cores + E-cores
  • 3.25x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (1,248 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    1,248 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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 vs 3).
    5.0 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
  • 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
  • 3x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (192 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    192 GB vs 64 GB
  • 2x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (6,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 44.4% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,560 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,560 vs 2,804.5
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 37.3% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (243 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    243 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 44.4% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,560 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,560 vs 2,804.5
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 37.3% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (243 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    243 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • 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
  • 28 seconds shorter turbo duration
    This processor has a lower turbo duration limit than the average processor (56 seconds vs 28 seconds). The average processor maintains turbo for 28 seconds.
    56 seconds vs 28 seconds

Video reviews

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

8.0
Peperaio Hardware
≈ estimated
09/12/2025
Hands-on review · rendering and gaming tests
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF is a good processor when discounted, but frequent Intel socket changes are a real drawback.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
24/10/2024
Lab test · Chip without graphics
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF is clearly faster in applications and uses less power, but it has no integrated graphics and needs a separate graphics card.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF

  • Significantly improved power efficiency and lower power consumption compared to the 14th Gen Core i5-14600K.
  • Excellent thermal performance, running much cooler than previous generations and often requiring less expensive cooling solutions.
  • Strong multi-threaded productivity performance in specific workloads like Blender and video editing (Adobe Premiere Pro).
  • Support for modern standards including PCIe Gen 5, Wi-Fi 7, and Thunderbolt 4/5.
  • Includes a dedicated NPU (Neural Processing Unit) to offload background AI tasks.
  • Unlocked multiplier allows for overclocking experimentation.

What customers don't like about Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF

  • Disappointing gaming performance that often trails behind both its predecessor (14600K) and AMD's Ryzen 5 9600X.
  • Requires a new LGA 1851 socket motherboard, leading to high total platform upgrade costs.
  • The 'KF' variant lacks integrated graphics, removing a useful troubleshooting backup and QuickSync capabilities.
  • Removal of Hyper-Threading can lead to performance regressions in certain multi-threaded applications.
  • Lacks DDR4 memory support, forcing an additional expense for DDR5 RAM.
  • Poor value proposition for gamers as older, cheaper Intel or AMD chips often provide superior frame rates.

Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF is a mid-range Arrow Lake desktop processor featuring 14 cores (6 Performance-cores and 8 Efficient-cores) and 14 threads, with a max turbo frequency of 5.2 GHz and 24 MB of L3 cache. Built on a 3nm process for the LGA 1851 socket, it supports up to 192 GB of DDR5-6400 memory and PCIe 5.0, while operating at a 125W base TDP (159W max turbo). Its main strengths include significantly improved power efficiency and cooler operating temperatures compared to previous generations, alongside a dedicated NPU for AI-enhanced tasks. However, it lacks integrated graphics (requiring a discrete GPU), removes Hyper-Threading which can hinder heavily threaded workloads, and often shows stagnant or regressive gaming performance compared to older 14th Gen predecessors.

Compare Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF 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 245KF and other processors

No results found