Intel Core 5 130HL vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core and thread counts for the Intel Core 5 130HL and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285?

A: The Intel Core 5 130HL has 12 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 boosts up to 5.60 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 130HL boosts up to 4.80 GHz.

Q: What is the difference in process node technology between the two chips?

A: The Intel Core 5 130HL is built on Intel's 10 nm process, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses a 3 nm process from TSMC.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of cache sizes?

A: The Intel Core 5 130HL has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The L1 and L2 caches are also larger on the Ultra 9 285.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 5 130HL does not.

Q: What is the average benchmark score and percentile ranking for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75488 and sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Intel Core 5 130HL has no recorded benchmark scores and sits in the 50th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 130HL and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 represent two distinct architectural generations from Intel. The 130HL is based on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS variant, while the 285 uses the newer Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename. This generational gap is reflected in the manufacturing process: the 130HL uses a 10 nm node fabricated by Intel, whereas the 285 uses a much smaller 3 nm node from TSMC. The Ultra 9 285 also carries a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², figures not recorded for the 130HL.

The core configurations differ substantially. The 130HL offers 12 cores and 16 threads, indicating a hybrid layout with some cores lacking hyper-threading, while the 285 provides 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning it uses only physical cores with no simultaneous multithreading. The 285's cache hierarchy is more generous at every level: 192 KB of L1 per core versus 80 KB, 3 MB of L2 per core versus 2 MB, and 36 MB of shared L3 versus 18 MB.

Connectivity and platform support also diverge. The 130HL uses Intel Socket 1700 and provides PCIe Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes. The 285 moves to Intel Socket 1851 and offers PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Memory support differs as well: the 130HL accepts both DDR4 and DDR5 across a dual-channel bus, while the 285 supports only DDR5 but with a specified memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the 285. Integrated graphics differ too, with the 130HL featuring Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units and the 285 using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two processors, and the Intel Core 5 130HL has no individual benchmark scores recorded. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285, however, has a full set of measurements across Cinebench and PassMark tests. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score reaches 48945, with a single-core score of 6909. In Cinebench R20, the 285 scores 20556 multi-core and 2901 single-core, and in Cinebench R15 it scores 4933 multi-core and 696 single-core.

PassMark results for the 285 show strength in data compression at 602121 and data encryption at 46949. Extended instruction performance is recorded at 45357, while prime number finding yields a much lower score of 459. Floating point math achieves 194988, integer math reaches 164869, and multithread performance is 56602. Physics tests produce 3598, random string sorting scores 73651, and single-thread performance is 4881.

Because the 130HL lacks any recorded scores, comparisons must be drawn from the 285's position in the broader database. The 285 holds a 95th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 75488. Its nearest rivals, all AMD parts, are tightly clustered: the AMD EPYC 8224P scores 75582, a delta of -0.1 percent relative to the 285, the AMD EPYC 4545P scores 75373 at +0.2 percent, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D scores 75716 at -0.3 percent, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 scores 75738 at -0.3 percent. This clustering indicates the 285 sits in a highly competitive performance band, within a fraction of a percent of several server and workstation class processors.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every core specification. The 130HL has 12 cores and 16 threads; the 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are close, 2.60 GHz versus 2.50 GHz, but boost clocks differ by 0.80 GHz in favor of the 285 at 5.60 GHz. Thermal design power is 45 watts for the 130HL and 65 watts for the 285. The 130HL uses Intel Socket 1700, the 285 uses Intel Socket 1851. Process nodes are 10 nm for the 130HL and 3 nm for the 285, with the 285's foundry listed as TSMC versus Intel for the 130HL.

Cache specifications are uniformly larger on the 285: L1 per core is 192 KB versus 80 KB, L2 per core is 3 MB versus 2 MB, and shared L3 is 36 MB versus 18 MB. Memory support on the 130HL includes DDR4 and DDR5, while the 285 supports only DDR5. Memory bandwidth is specified at 102.4 GB/s for the 285 but not recorded for the 130HL. ECC memory is supported on the 285 only. PCIe capabilities favor the 285 with Gen 5 and 20 lanes versus Gen 4 and 8 lanes on the 130HL. Integrated graphics differ: Iris Xe Graphics 80EU on the 130HL and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU on the 285. The 285 has a listed part number of SRQD4, while the 130HL is marked as unknown. The 285 carries a launch MSRP of $579, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the 130HL. Both processors have locked multipliers and are classified as desktop parts, with active production status.

The Verdict

The recorded data heavily favors the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 in absolute performance terms. It is the only one of the two with benchmark scores in the database, and those scores place it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 130HL has no recorded scores and sits at the 50th percentile, a position that suggests it is an average performer without any distinguishing benchmark data. The 285 also offers a newer architecture, a smaller process node, more cores, more cache, faster boost clocks, and broader platform features such as PCIe Gen 5 and ECC memory support.

The 130HL does hold advantages in a few areas. Its 45 watt TDP is lower than the 285's 65 watts, and it retains support for DDR4 memory, which can be relevant for systems with existing DDR4 modules. Its integrated graphics also has more execution units, 80 versus 64. However, these advantages do not translate into any measured performance wins, as the database shows zero benchmark wins for the 130HL and zero for the 285 in head-to-head entries, with the 285's standalone scores serving as the only quantitative evidence.

The 285's nearest rival cluster, all AMD parts within 0.3 percent of its average score, indicates that its performance is competitive with high-end server and workstation processors. The 130HL has no such rival data. For any workload where multi-threaded throughput, single-thread speed, or memory bandwidth matters, the 285 is the only one of the two with demonstrated capability. The 130HL's role appears limited to lower-power or legacy-platform scenarios, but the database provides no measurements to confirm its performance in those contexts.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins in every measured benchmark category present in the database. Its Cinebench scores across R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core, are recorded and strong. Its PassMark results cover data compression, encryption, extended instructions, floating point math, integer math, multithread performance, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. The 285 also wins on architectural grounds: 24 cores, 24 threads, a 5.60 GHz boost clock, 36 MB of L3 cache, 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, and ECC memory support all favor this processor for demanding desktop workloads.

The Intel Core 5 130HL wins only in the absence of data. Its 45 watt TDP is lower than the 285's 65 watts, which could imply better efficiency in constrained thermal environments, though no efficiency benchmarks exist in the pack to confirm this. Its support for DDR4 memory gives it compatibility with older platforms, and its socket 1700 interface aligns it with a previous generation of motherboards. Its integrated graphics has 80 execution units compared to 64 on the 285, which may offer an advantage in graphics tasks that rely on execution unit count rather than architecture. The 130HL's 12 cores and 16 threads, while fewer than the 285, still provide a reasonable baseline for multi-threaded work, and its 2.60 GHz base clock is slightly higher than the 285's 2.50 GHz.

For users prioritizing measured performance, the 285 is the clear choice based on its extensive benchmark record and 95th percentile ranking. For users prioritizing lower power consumption, DDR4 compatibility, or a different socket platform, the 130HL offers those attributes, but the database contains no performance scores to validate its capability in those roles. The recorded data supports the 285 for any performance-sensitive application, while the 130HL remains a specification-only option with no benchmark evidence to back its positioning.