Ultra 5 245K vs Pentium 4 1.8A
Primary details
Comparing Pentium 4 1.8A and Core Ultra 5 245K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 176 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 75.95 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | no data | 20.53 |
| Architecture codename | Willamette (2000−2001) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| Release date | July 2001 (23 years ago) | 24 October 2024 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $309 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Pentium 4 1.8A and Core Ultra 5 245K 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) | 14 (Tetradeca-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 14 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 4.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 5.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 159 MHz |
| L1 cache | 8 KB | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 24 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 180 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 217 mm2 | 243 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 78 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 42 million | 17,800 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Pentium 4 1.8A and Core Ultra 5 245K 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | 423 | 1851 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 67 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Pentium 4 1.8A and Core Ultra 5 245K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| SIPP | - | + |
Security technologies
Pentium 4 1.8A and Core Ultra 5 245K technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Pentium 4 1.8A and Core Ultra 5 245K are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Pentium 4 1.8A and Core Ultra 5 245K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Arc Xe2 Graphics 64EU |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Pentium 4 1.8A and Core Ultra 5 245K.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 14 |
| Threads | 1 | 14 |
| Chip lithography | 180 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 67 Watt | 125 Watt |
Pentium 4 1.8A has 86.6% lower power consumption.
Ultra 5 245K, on the other hand, has 1300% more physical cores and 1300% more threads, and a 5900% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Pentium 4 1.8A and Core Ultra 5 245K. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Pentium 4 1.8A and Core Ultra 5 245K, 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.
