The pitch sets Core Ultra 200S across from Zen 5 at every tier. Intel lists twelve SKUs to AMD’s nine, which looks busy but does not prove faster silicon.

At the top, the Core Ultra 9 285K is stacked against the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, 9950X, 9900X3D and 9900X. Chipzilla claims gaming parity with the 9950X3D and only a nine per cent lag in a few hand-picked titles, while touting better creator scores.

Against the 9950X, Intel again says the 285K is neck and neck at 1080p across five games, including Starfield. Independent testing has not been quite so kind at stock settings.

Chipzilla’s slides show the 285K leading the 9900X by as much as fourteen per cent in some titles such as Stalker 2. The usual caveats on test settings apply.

Core Ultra 7 265K is pitched at Ryzen 7 9700X and 9800X3D. Intel’s value slide reckons the 265K delivers fifteen per cent better gaming perf per dollar than the 9700X at MSRP.

That neat equation unravels in the real world. Street prices for the 9700X often hit $279 to $299, which wipes away the tidy value advantage Intel is selling.

Chipzilla claims the 265K can hang with the 9800X3D in certain games at 1080p. The 9800X3D remains the quickest gaming chip by double digits across proper test suites.

Mainstream buyers get the Core Ultra 5 245K versus Ryzen 5 9600X. Intel shows swings of nine per cent either way in games, then leans on creator wins from its extra E-cores.

Budget messaging compares the Core Ultra 5 225 to the old Core i5-14400 with up to forty three per cent better frames and a claimed twenty per cent average bump.

Intel does not spell out exact game settings, nor whether APO was toggled, which matters when margins are tight and marketing is doing the heavy lifting.

Even Chipzilla has admitted Arrow Lake desktop missed expectations, while pointing to Nova Lake as the launch meant to close the gap with AMD.

Gamers should look past MSRP theatre, read independent reviews, and watch actual retail pricing before they throw cash at another blue bar chart.