Intel Core 7 250H vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive outcome: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 7 250H. The largest margin appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Ultra 9 285 scores 6909 against 1931 for the Core 7 250H, a 72.1% advantage. This indicates a substantial per-thread performance gap that carries across every workload category.

Multi-core rendering shows a similar pattern. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 285 delivers 48945 points versus 16561 for the Core 7 250H, a 66.2% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core follows with 20556 against 9697, a 52.8% difference, while Cinebench R15 multi-core records 4933 versus 3147, a 36.2% gap. The older Cinebench R15 test shows the smallest multi-core delta among the three versions, yet the Ultra 9 285 still holds a commanding edge.

PassMark results reinforce the Ultra 9 285's dominance across varied instruction types. The largest single delta is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 9 285 scores 459 versus 106, a 76.9% advantage. Floating point math shows 194988 against 65094, a 66.6% lead, and extended instructions record 45357 versus 17318, a 61.8% margin. Data encryption follows closely at 46949 versus 18206, a 61.2% difference.

The narrowest win for the Ultra 9 285 occurs in PassMark single-thread performance, with 4881 points against 4148, a 15% margin. Even in this closest comparison, the Ultra 9 285 maintains a clear advantage. Integer math shows 164869 versus 99100, a 39.9% lead, while data compression records 602121 versus 303269, a 49.6% gap. Random string sorting delivers 73651 against 34136, a 53.7% margin, and multithread performance shows 56602 versus 27030, a 52.2% difference. Physics scores 3598 against 1824, a 49.3% lead.

The average benchmark score confirms the overall picture: the Ultra 9 285 averages 75488, while the Core 7 250H averages 35728. The Core 7 250H sits at the 85th percentile of all CPUs in the database, whereas the Ultra 9 285 reaches the 95th percentile. The nearest rivals for each part reflect their respective tiers. The Core 7 250H's closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 with an average score of 35719 and a delta of 0%, followed by the Intel Core Ultra 9 185H at 35670 with a 0.2% delta. The Ultra 9 285 sits near the AMD EPYC 8224P at 75582, a 0.1% delta, and the AMD EPYC 4545P at 75373, a 0.2% delta.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design families. The Core 7 250H uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-H, built on Intel's 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, manufactured on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. This process difference contributes to substantial changes in transistor density and power characteristics.

Core counts differ significantly. The Core 7 250H has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The thread count equals the core count on the Ultra 9 285, indicating no hyperthreading on that part, whereas the Core 7 250H carries six additional threads beyond its core count. The Ultra 9 285 specifies 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 7 250H has no recorded transistor or die size data.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 7 250H provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 285 raises each level: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. These larger cache allocations support the Ultra 9 285's higher throughput in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 7 250H supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory across a dual-channel bus, while the Core Ultra 9 285 supports only DDR5 but records a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core 7 250H has no recorded memory bandwidth figure. ECC memory support also separates the two: the Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC, while the Core 7 250H does not.

PCIe connectivity shows a notable difference. The Core 7 250H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 9 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. This gives the desktop part substantially more expansion bandwidth for discrete GPUs and storage devices.

Integrated graphics differ in execution unit counts. The Core 7 250H pairs with Iris Xe Graphics 96EU, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The mobile part carries more execution units, though the desktop part's graphics architecture differs.

The socket and market positioning also diverge. The Core 7 250H uses Intel BGA 1744 and targets the mobile segment, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851 and targets desktop systems. Both parts have locked multipliers, and both are marked as active production. The Core 7 250H launched on 2024-12-17, while the Core Ultra 9 285 launched on 2024-12-31.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows no benchmark category where the Core 7 250H outperforms the Core Ultra 9 285. Every recorded test across Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and all PassMark workloads favors the Ultra 9 285. The closest contest is PassMark single-thread performance, where the Ultra 9 285 leads by 15%, a smaller margin than the 36.2% to 76.9% ranges seen elsewhere.

The Core 7 250H's role in this comparison is best understood through its position among its own rivals. Its average score of 35728 places it within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X at 35909 and within 0.2% of the Intel Core Ultra 9 185H at 35670. This indicates the Core 7 250H competes effectively within the mid-range mobile segment, even though it cannot challenge the Ultra 9 285.

The Ultra 9 285's wins concentrate heavily in computationally intensive tasks. The largest margins appear in prime number finding, floating point math, and extended instruction workloads, suggesting the Arrow Lake architecture with its 3 nm process and larger caches handles complex mathematical operations with particular efficiency. The smallest margin in single-thread performance still shows a meaningful 15% lead, indicating that even lightly threaded applications favor the desktop part.

For users running rendering workloads, the Cinebench results show the Ultra 9 285 delivers roughly 2.5 to 3 times the multi-core throughput of the Core 7 250H depending on the test version. Single-core rendering shows an even larger gap in the R23 version, with the Ultra 9 285 scoring 6909 against 1931, a 72.1% advantage. The R15 single-core test shows 696 against 298, a 57.2% gap, while R20 single-core records 2901 versus 1368, a 52.8% margin.

The Core 7 250H does offer a distinct advantage in power envelope, with a 45 watt TDP against 65 watts for the Ultra 9 285. This makes the mobile part more suitable for thermally constrained laptop designs, while the desktop part's higher TDP accommodates its additional cores and higher boost clock. The Core 7 250H also supports DDR4 memory, which may ease upgrade paths in existing systems, though the Ultra 9 285's ECC support targets different reliability requirements.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 boosts to 5.60 GHz, while the Intel Core 7 250H boosts to 5.40 GHz. Both have a base clock of 2.50 GHz.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference between the two?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Core 7 250H has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Ultra 9 285 has no hyperthreading, while the Core 7 250H provides six additional threads beyond its core count.

Q: How much larger is the L3 cache on the Core Ultra 9 285?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core 7 250H has 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 285 also provides more L1 and L2 cache per core.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, while the Core 7 250H does not. Both support dual-channel memory, but the Core 7 250H supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 only.

Q: What process nodes do these processors use?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the Core 7 250H uses a 10 nm process at Intel. The Ultra 9 285 also has a recorded transistor count of 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes from the CPU?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 7 250H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The Ultra 9 285 offers substantially more expansion bandwidth.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 250H | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 |

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

| Cores | 14 | 24 |

| Threads | 20 | 24 |

| Boost Clock | 5.40 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-H | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 243 mm² |

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

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

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

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

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

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

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Launch MSRP | $502 | $579 |

The two processors share a base clock of 2.50 GHz, dual-channel memory bus, locked multipliers, and active production status. Both are manufactured by Intel, though the Core Ultra 9 285 uses TSMC's 3 nm process while the Core 7 250H uses Intel's 10 nm process. The Core 7 250H launched on 2024-12-17, two weeks before the Core Ultra 9 285 on 2024-12-31.