Intel Core 7 251TE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285H Comparison
Intel Core 7 251TE
Core Ultra 9 285H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 7 251TE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285H
The Verdict
The benchmark data separates these two Intel processors into distinct roles. The Intel Core 7 251TE wins 4 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H wins 13. The Core 7 251TE posts an average benchmark score of 41650 against the Ultra 9 285H's 38312, placing them at the 88th and 86th percentiles of all CPUs respectively. The Core 7 251TE is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700 with 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Ultra 9 285H is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2049 with 16 cores and 16 threads. A builder targeting a desktop workstation with heavy integer workloads should favor the Core 7 251TE, while anyone needing a mobile processor with broad strength across encryption, floating point, and single-thread tasks should choose the Ultra 9 285H. The launch MSRP is $384 for the Core 7 251TE and $651 for the Ultra 9 285H.
The Core 7 251TE dominates in integer math, Cinebench R23 multi-core, and Cinebench R23 single-core, with a massive 69.1% lead in the latter. The Ultra 9 285H counters with wins in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core, all PassMark workloads except integer math, and both single-thread PassMark entries. The data shows the Core 7 251TE is the better choice for Cinebench R23 rendering and integer-heavy computations, whereas the Ultra 9 285H is more consistent across a broader mix of tasks.
Where Each One Wins
The Core 7 251TE takes Cinebench R23 multi-core with a score of 25518 against 20781.5, a 22.8% advantage. It also wins Cinebench R23 single-core at 3602 versus 2129.5, a 69.1% margin. In PassMark integer math, the Core 7 251TE scores 125739 versus 85922, a 46.3% lead. These three wins define its strength: heavy multi-threaded rendering in R23 and pure integer arithmetic.
The Ultra 9 285H wins the remaining 13 tests. It leads in Cinebench R15 multi-core (3177.5 versus 2572, a 19.1% margin) and Cinebench R20 multi-core (12201 versus 10717, a 12.2% margin). It also wins Cinebench R20 single-core (1722 versus 1512, 12.2%). In PassMark, the Ultra 9 285H wins data compression (335859 versus 334399, a narrow 0.4% margin), data encryption (26140 versus 22176, 15.2%), extended instructions (26794 versus 16974, 36.6%), find prime numbers (330 versus 140, 57.6%), floating point math (109190 versus 85607, 21.6%), multithread (34171 versus 30022, 12.1%), physics (2513 versus 1938, 22.9%), random string sorting (40931 versus 39643, 3.1%), and both single-thread PassMark entries (4415 versus 3568, 19.2%). The Ultra 9 285H also has Geekbench scores of 14743 multi-core and 2178 single-core, tests not recorded for the Core 7 251TE.
Architecture Differences
The Core 7 251TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm Intel process with a 215 mm² die size. It has 24 cores and 32 threads, with 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Its base clock is 1.40 GHz with a 5.40 GHz boost. It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, and includes ECC memory support. PCIe is Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 770.
The Ultra 9 285H uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-H codename on a 3 nm TSMC process. It has 16 cores and 16 threads, with 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. Its base clock is 2.90 GHz with a 5.40 GHz boost. It supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory in dual-channel mode with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, and includes ECC memory support. PCIe is Gen 5 with 8 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics are Arc Graphics 140T.
The Core 7 251TE has 8 more cores and 16 more threads, but the Ultra 9 285H runs on a smaller 3 nm process from TSMC versus Intel's 10 nm. The Ultra 9 285H has a higher base clock (2.90 GHz versus 1.40 GHz) and larger per-core caches (192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 versus 80 KB and 1.25 MB), but the Core 7 251TE has more total L3 (36 MB versus 24 MB). The Ultra 9 285H has higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s) and double the PCIe lanes are available on the Core 7 251TE (16 versus 8). Both are active production parts released on the same date, 2025-01-12.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores?
A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads.
Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has an average benchmark score of 41650, compared to 38312 for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H. The Core 7 251TE sits at the 88th percentile of all CPUs, the Ultra 9 285H at the 86th.
Q: Which processor wins Cinebench R23 multi-core?
A: The Intel Core 7 251TE wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 25518 points versus 20781.5 for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H, a 22.8% advantage.
Q: Which processor has better single-thread PassMark performance?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H scores 4415 in PassMark single-thread, compared to 3568 for the Intel Core 7 251TE, a 19.2% lead. The Ultra 9 285H also wins Cinebench R20 single-core (1722 versus 1512), but the Core 7 251TE wins Cinebench R23 single-core (3602 versus 2129.5) and Cinebench R15 single-core (362 versus 313).
Q: What memory types does each processor support?
A: The Intel Core 7 251TE supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory and support ECC.
Q: What are the integrated graphics on each processor?
A: The Intel Core 7 251TE uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H uses Arc Graphics 140T.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The largest win for the Intel Core 7 251TE is Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 3602 against 2129.5, a 69.1% margin. This is the single biggest delta in the entire comparison. The Core 7 251TE also wins PassMark integer math by 46.3% (125739 versus 85922) and Cinebench R23 multi-core by 22.8% (25518 versus 20781.5). Its fourth win is Cinebench R15 single-core at 362 versus 313, a 15.7% margin.
The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H's biggest win is PassMark find prime numbers, scoring 330 versus 140, a 57.6% advantage. It also wins PassMark extended instructions by 36.6% (26794 versus 16974) and PassMark physics by 22.9% (2513 versus 1938). In floating point math, the Ultra 9 285H leads 109190 versus 85607, a 21.6% margin. The Ultra 9 285H wins PassMark single-thread by 19.2% (4415 versus 3568) and Cinebench R15 multi-core by 19.1% (3177.5 versus 2572). Data encryption goes to the Ultra 9 285H at 26140 versus 22176, a 15.2% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core and single-core both go to the Ultra 9 285H by 12.2% (12201 versus 10717 and 1722 versus 1512). PassMark multithread shows the Ultra 9 285H ahead by 12.1% (34171 versus 30022). Random string sorting is a narrow 3.1% win for the Ultra 9 285H (40931 versus 39643), and data compression is nearly even at 0.4% (335859 versus 334399).
The overall pattern in the data shows the Core 7 251TE concentrates its wins in Cinebench R23 and integer math, while the Ultra 9 285H takes everything else. The Core 7 251TE's 24 cores and 32 threads give it a clear edge in R23 multi-core rendering, but the Ultra 9 285H's higher base clock and larger per-core caches help it in most other workloads. The Ultra 9 285H's 3 nm TSMC process appears to deliver better efficiency in floating point and encryption tasks, while the Core 7 251TE's 10 nm Intel process with more cores favors integer throughput.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in nearly every specification category. The Core 7 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads; the Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 1.40 GHz for the Core 7 251TE and 2.90 GHz for the Ultra 9 285H, while boost clocks match at 5.40 GHz. Both have a 45 W TDP. The Core 7 251TE uses Intel Socket 1700, the Ultra 9 285H uses Intel BGA 2049. The process node is 10 nm from Intel for the Core 7 251TE and 3 nm from TSMC for the Ultra 9 285H. The Core 7 251TE has a 215 mm² die size, while the Ultra 9 285H has no recorded die size.
Cache configurations differ: the Core 7 251TE has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3; the Ultra 9 285H has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 7 251TE versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Ultra 9 285H. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe is Gen 5 with 16 lanes on the Core 7 251TE and 8 lanes on the Ultra 9 285H. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 770 versus Arc Graphics 140T. The Core 7 251TE is a desktop part, the Ultra 9 285H is mobile. Codename is Bartlett Lake versus Arrow Lake-H. The launch MSRP differs at $384 for the Core 7 251TE and $651 for the Ultra 9 285H.