Ultra 9 285K vs K6-2/400ACK
Primary details
Comparing K6-2/400ACK and Core Ultra 9 285K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 50 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 74.59 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD K6-2 | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 32.75 |
| Architecture codename | K6-2 (1998−1999) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| Release date | 22 March 1999 (25 years ago) | 24 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $589 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
K6-2/400ACK and Core Ultra 9 285K basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 1 (Single-Core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 24 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 0.1 GHz | 5.7 GHz |
| Bus type | FSB | no data |
| Bus rate | 99.99 MT/s | 250 MHz |
| Multiplier | 4 | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 36 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 0.25 µm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 81 mm2 | 243 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 9 Million | 17,800 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on K6-2/400ACK and Core Ultra 9 285K compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | 1851 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by K6-2/400ACK and Core Ultra 9 285K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
Security technologies
K6-2/400ACK and Core Ultra 9 285K technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by K6-2/400ACK and Core Ultra 9 285K are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by K6-2/400ACK and Core Ultra 9 285K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5 Depends on motherboard |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by K6-2/400ACK and Core Ultra 9 285K.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 22 March 1999 | 24 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 24 |
| Threads | 1 | 24 |
Ultra 9 285K has an age advantage of 25 years, and 2300% more physical cores and 2300% more threads.
We couldn't decide between K6-2/400ACK and Core Ultra 9 285K. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that K6-2/400ACK is a notebook processor while Core Ultra 9 285K is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between K6-2/400ACK and Core Ultra 9 285K, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
