Intel Core 7 150UL vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 150UL and Intel Core Ultra 9 285 occupy completely different performance tiers. The database records no head-to-head benchmark wins for the Core 7 150UL, as it has no benchmark scores listed. The Core Ultra 9 285, by contrast, holds every recorded benchmark score in this comparison, covering Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and PassMark workloads. This is not a close contest; the Core Ultra 9 285 sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 150UL sits at the 50th percentile.

The use-case split is stark. The Core 7 150UL, with a 15 W TDP and Raptor Lake architecture, targets power-constrained desktop systems where efficiency matters more than throughput. Its 10 cores and 12 threads handle light multitasking, office workloads, and basic content consumption. The Core Ultra 9 285, with a 65 W TDP and 24 cores, targets high-end desktop builds for rendering, simulation, data processing, and heavy multi-threaded compilation. The benchmark data confirms this: the Core Ultra 9 285 delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 48,945, a result that places it in the top 5% of all CPUs in the database. The Core 7 150UL has no recorded score to compare, but its 50th percentile ranking suggests mid-pack performance across the broader CPU landscape.

For single-threaded workloads, the Core Ultra 9 285 again leads, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 6,909 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4,881. The Core 7 150UL has no recorded single-thread scores. This means the Core Ultra 9 285 is the clear choice for tasks that depend on raw clock speed and per-core efficiency, not just multi-core throughput. The Core 7 150UL, despite its 5.00 GHz boost clock, lacks the architecture improvements of Arrow Lake and the higher 5.60 GHz boost of the Ultra 9.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures, built for different eras and sockets. The Core 7 150UL uses Raptor Lake (Raptor Lake-PS) on Intel Socket 1700, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arrow Lake (Arrow Lake-S) on Intel Socket 1851, fabricated on TSMC's 3 nm process with 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die. This process difference explains much of the performance gap: the 3 nm node allows higher transistor density and better power efficiency per clock.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 7 150UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, suggesting a hybrid arrangement with performance and efficiency cores, though the database does not specify the split. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning no hyper-threading on any core. This is a notable architectural choice: Arrow Lake prioritizes physical cores over logical threads, which can benefit certain workloads that scale better with true cores.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The Core 7 150UL has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9's larger caches reduce memory latency and improve data locality for multi-threaded workloads, directly supporting its higher Cinebench scores.

Memory support also differs. The Core 7 150UL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode, offering flexibility for older motherboards. The Core Ultra 9 285 supports only DDR5, but with a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, double what a typical dual-channel DDR4 setup would provide. The Ultra 9 also supports ECC memory, while the Core 7 does not. For workstations that require error correction, this is a decisive feature.

PCIe connectivity reflects their respective generations. The Core 7 150UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 9 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 9's PCIe Gen 5 support doubles the per-lane bandwidth available to GPUs and NVMe drives, a meaningful difference for high-end systems.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Core 7 150UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. Despite fewer execution units, the Arc graphics architecture is newer and supports modern media codecs. The database does not provide iGPU benchmark scores, so a direct comparison is not possible.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 9 285 dominates every recorded benchmark, with no scores available for the Core 7 150UL. This makes the head-to-head section one-sided, but the magnitude of the Ultra 9's results is still instructive.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945. This is a massive result, roughly 2.4 times the score of a typical mid-range desktop CPU in the database. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 6,909, indicating strong per-thread performance. The gap between multi-core and single-core scores (a ratio of about 7.1) shows that the 24-core design scales well under parallel workloads.

Cinebench R20 results mirror this pattern: 20,556 multi-core and 2,901 single-core. Cinebench R15 shows 4,933 multi-core and 696 single-core. These consistent ratios across Cinebench versions confirm that the Core Ultra 9 285 delivers balanced performance across rendering generations, not just in one benchmark.

PassMark results add another dimension. The Core Ultra 9 285 scores 602,121 in data compression, 46,949 in data encryption, 45,357 in extended instructions, and 459 in find prime numbers. The integer math score is 164,869, while floating point math reaches 194,988. The multithread score is 56,602, and the single-thread score is 4,881 (recorded twice in the database, as passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread, with identical values). Random string sorting scores 73,651, and physics scores 3,598.

These PassMark sub-scores reveal specific strengths. The data compression score (602,121) is exceptionally high, suggesting the CPU's cache and memory subsystem handle data movement efficiently. The floating point math score (194,988) is nearly 18% higher than the integer math score (164,869), indicating strong FPU performance for scientific and engineering workloads. The physics score (3,598), while lower in absolute terms, still represents a solid result for simulated physics calculations.

The nearest rivals in the database provide context. The AMD EPYC 8224P scores 75,582 on average, just 0.1% above the Core Ultra 9 285's average of 75,488. The AMD EPYC 4545P scores 75,373, 0.2% below. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D scores 75,716, 0.3% above, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 scores 75,738, 0.3% above. These deltas are all within 0.3%, placing the Core Ultra 9 285 in a virtual tie with several high-end server and workstation CPUs. This is remarkable for a desktop processor, as it competes with EPYC server parts on average benchmark score.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion. The Intel Core 7 150UL is a low-power desktop processor for basic systems. Its 15 W TDP, 10 cores, and 12 threads suit light workloads, and its 50th percentile ranking shows it performs at the median of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is a high-end desktop processor for demanding multi-threaded tasks. Its 24 cores, 36 MB L3 cache, 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 95th percentile ranking place it among the fastest CPUs in the database.

For users who prioritize efficiency and run modest applications, the Core 7 150UL is the appropriate choice. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5, uses a mature LGA 1700 platform, and consumes far less power. For users who run rendering, simulation, data analysis, or heavy compilation, the Core Ultra 9 285 is the superior option. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 48,945, combined with a 0.1% margin against the AMD EPYC 8224P, shows it delivers workstation-class throughput in a desktop package.

The launch MSRP of $579 for the Core Ultra 9 285 positions it in the premium desktop segment, though the database provides no price for the Core 7 150UL. The Core Ultra 9 285 also supports ECC memory and PCIe Gen 5, making it viable for entry-level workstations that need data integrity and fast I/O.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores, while the Intel Core 7 150UL has 10 cores. The Ultra 9 also has 24 threads compared to the Core 7's 12 threads.

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 boosts to 5.60 GHz, while the Intel Core 7 150UL boosts to 5.00 GHz. The base clocks are 2.50 GHz and 1.70 GHz, respectively.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 7 150UL does not support ECC memory.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 9 285 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75,488. The AMD EPYC 8224P scores 75,582 (0.1% higher), the AMD EPYC 4545P scores 75,373 (0.2% lower), and both the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D and Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 score 0.3% higher at 75,716 and 75,738, respectively.

Q: What is the process node for each CPU?

A: The Intel Core 7 150UL uses Intel's 10 nm process, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses TSMC's 3 nm process with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

Q: Which CPU has larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 7 150UL has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 150UL | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Cores | 10 | 24 |

| Threads | 12 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 1.70 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-PS | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not specified | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not specified | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not specified | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 96EU | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Release Date | 2024-04-07 | 2024-12-31 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | $579 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | Unknown | SRQD4 |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 50 | 95 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 0 | 75,488 |