Intel Core 7 240H vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison
Intel Core 7 240H
Core Ultra 9 285
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 7 240H vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285
The Verdict
The recorded data presents a complete sweep: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core 7 240H. The Core 7 240H records zero wins in the database. This is not a close contest by any measure. The Core Ultra 9 285 sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 240H sits in the 82nd percentile. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 9 285 is 75,488, more than double the 31,483 average of the Core 7 240H.
The market segments tell a clear story. The Core 7 240H is a mobile processor with a 45 TDP, designed for laptops. The Core Ultra 9 285 is a desktop processor with a 65 TDP. The data indicates these are different classes of hardware. The desktop part delivers massive multicore and singlecore advantages across every workload. The mobile part is active in production, but its performance profile places it far behind the desktop flagship.
The Core Ultra 9 285 is the only choice for any workload where maximum throughput matters. The Core 7 240H serves the mobile space where the desktop part cannot physically fit, but the benchmark results show no scenario where the Core 7 240H outperforms its larger sibling. The nearest rivals for the Core 7 240H are the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 at 31,473, the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX at 31,495, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H at 31,508. The Core Ultra 9 285 competes against server-class AMD EPYC parts, including the AMD EPYC 8224P at 75,582 and the AMD EPYC 4545P at 75,373. The placement of each processor in the database confirms their different competitive arenas.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from entirely different design lineages. The Core 7 240H uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-H codename, built on Intel's 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. It belongs to the Core 7 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. It belongs to the Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake) generation, part of the Core Ultra Series 2.
The transistor counts differ enormously. The Core Ultra 9 285 packs 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The database does not record a transistor count or die size for the Core 7 240H. The Core 7 240H uses 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses 24 cores and 24 threads. The thread count equal to core count on the Ultra 9 indicates no Hyper-Threading on that part, while the Core 7 240H has 16 threads from 10 cores, indicating Hyper-Threading on some cores.
The cache hierarchies differ at every level. The Core 7 240H has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The larger cache allocations on the Ultra 9 align with its higher core count and desktop positioning.
Memory support diverges sharply. The Core 7 240H supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The Core Ultra 9 285 supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but with a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core 7 240H has no recorded memory bandwidth figure. ECC memory is supported on the Core Ultra 9 285, while the Core 7 240H does not support ECC. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core 7 240H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 9 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only).
The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 7 240H uses Iris Xe Graphics 64EU, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Both have 64 execution units, but they belong to different graphics families. The sockets are incompatible: the Core 7 240H uses Intel BGA 1744, a mobile socket, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop socket.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Core Ultra 9 285 dominates every recorded test. The smallest margin is in PassMark single-thread performance, where the Ultra 9 scores 4,881 against 3,782 for the Core 7 240H, a 22.5% advantage. This is the closest contest in the entire dataset, yet the Core 7 240H still loses by nearly a quarter.
The multicore Cinebench results show the largest gaps. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 against 15,764, a 67.8% lead. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Ultra 9 scores 20,556 against 8,562, a 58.3% lead. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 9 scores 4,933 against 2,360, a 52.2% lead. The singlecore Cinebench results follow a similar pattern: R23 singlecore shows 6,909 versus 1,719, a 75.1% lead; R20 singlecore shows 2,901 versus 1,208, a 58.4% lead; R15 singlecore shows 696 versus 249, a 64.2% lead.
The PassMark suite reinforces the pattern. The largest delta in the entire dataset is PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 9 scores 459 against 102, a 77.8% lead. Floating point math shows a 69.8% lead (194,988 versus 58,905). Data encryption shows a 67.7% lead (46,949 versus 15,155). Extended instructions show a 62.7% lead (45,357 versus 16,897). Random string sorting shows a 60.8% lead (73,651 versus 28,866). Multithread shows a 57.6% lead (56,602 versus 23,975). Data compression shows a 54.9% lead (602,121 versus 271,774). Physics shows a 52.1% lead (3,598 versus 1,723). Integer math shows a 51.2% lead (164,869 versus 80,396).
The Core 7 240H has no recorded wins in any test. Every single delta is negative from its perspective. The smallest deficit is the 22.5% single-thread gap, which suggests the mobile part's 5.20 GHz boost clock keeps it competitive in lightly threaded desktop tasks, but the 5.60 GHz boost clock of the Ultra 9 still prevails.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in nearly every recorded specification field. The Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. Both have a base clock of 2.50 GHz. The boost clock differs: the Core 7 240H reaches 5.20 GHz, while the Core Ultra 9 285 reaches 5.60 GHz.
The TDP differs by 20 watts: 45 for the Core 7 240H, 65 for the Core Ultra 9 285. The sockets are entirely different: Intel BGA 1744 for the mobile part, Intel Socket 1851 for the desktop part. The process nodes differ: 10 nm for the Core 7 240H, 3 nm for the Core Ultra 9 285. The foundries differ: Intel for the Core 7 240H, TSMC for the Core Ultra 9 285.
The cache specifications differ at every level, as detailed above. Memory support differs: DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 7 240H, DDR5 only for the Core Ultra 9 285. The memory bandwidth is recorded only for the Ultra 9 at 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the Ultra 9. PCIe lanes differ: 8 lanes for the Core 7 240H, 20 lanes for the Ultra 9. The integrated graphics differ: Iris Xe Graphics 64EU versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.
The market segments differ: Mobile for the Core 7 240H, Desktop for the Ultra 9. The release dates are close: the Core 7 240H released on 2024-12-17, the Core Ultra 9 285 on 2024-12-31. The launch MSRP for the Core 7 240H is $502, and the launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 9 285 is $579. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are SRQ6TQ5ML for the Core 7 240H and SRQD4 for the Ultra 9.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads.
Q: What is the performance gap in Cinebench R23 multicore?
A: The Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945, while the Core 7 240H scores 15,764. The Ultra 9 leads by 67.8% in this test.
Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 7 240H does not support ECC memory.
Q: Are the two processors compatible with the same socket?
A: No. The Core 7 240H uses Intel BGA 1744, a mobile socket, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop socket.
Q: What memory types does each processor support?
A: The Core 7 240H supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The Core Ultra 9 285 supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, with a recorded bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.
Q: What is the smallest performance difference between the two?
A: The smallest delta is in PassMark single-thread performance, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4,881 versus 3,782 for the Core 7 240H, a 22.5% lead.
Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?
A: The Core Ultra 9 285 reaches 5.60 GHz, while the Core 7 240H reaches 5.20 GHz. Both have a base clock of 2.50 GHz.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every recorded benchmark category. There is no workload in the database where the Intel Core 7 240H comes out ahead. The data shows the Ultra 9 as the superior part for all compute-intensive tasks, from Cinebench rendering to PassMark encryption, compression, and mathematical workloads.
The Core 7 240H uses 10 cores and 16 threads with a 45 TDP, placing it in the mobile segment. Its performance profile, with a 5.20 GHz boost clock and 24 MB of L3 cache, suits thin-and-light or mainstream laptop workloads. It delivers a 31,483 average benchmark score and sits in the 82nd percentile. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 and the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX, both within a fraction of a percent. The Core 7 240H is competitive within its mobile class, even though it loses decisively to the desktop Ultra 9.
The Core Ultra 9 285 uses 24 cores and 24 threads with a 65 TDP, a desktop part with 36 MB of L3 cache and a 5.60 GHz boost clock. Its average benchmark score of 75,488 places it in the 95th percentile, alongside AMD EPYC server processors. The 3 nm TSMC process node and 17,800 million transistors indicate a fundamentally more advanced design. The 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth and 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes support high-end desktop configurations.
The use-case split follows the market segments. For desktop workstations, rendering, and high-throughput parallel workloads, the Core Ultra 9 285 is the only option from this pair. For mobile computing, the Core 7 240H is the only option that physically fits in a laptop socket. The benchmark data confirms that the desktop part outperforms the mobile part in every measured dimension, with the smallest gap being 22.5% in single-thread performance and the largest gap being 77.8% in prime number computation. The Core 7 240H remains a viable mobile processor within its peer group, but the Core Ultra 9 285 stands in a different performance class entirely.