Intel Core i7-13700F vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285H Comparison

The Intel Core i7-13700F and Intel Core Ultra 9 285H represent two distinct approaches to CPU design within Intel’s lineup: one is a high-power desktop part from the Raptor Lake generation, the other a mobile-first processor built on the newer Arrow Lake architecture. Despite both featuring 16 cores, their performance profiles diverge sharply across workloads. Benchmark data shows the i7-13700F takes 14 of the 19 head-to-head comparisons, but the Ultra 9 285H wins in specific areas that highlight its architectural advantages. This analysis breaks down where each chip excels, what separates them internally, and what the numbers mean for real-world use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i7-13700F is the clear winner in heavily threaded productivity and content-creation tasks. Its most dominant victory comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 32101 against the Ultra 9’s 20781.5, a 54.5% advantage. This pattern repeats across other multi-threaded benchmarks: the i7-13700F leads by 10.5% in Cinebench R20 multi-core (13482 vs 12201) and by 12.3% in PassMark’s multithread test (38369 vs 34171). The desktop chip also excels at integer-heavy operations, posting a 64.5% lead in PassMark integer math (141370 vs 85922) and a 40.5% edge in data compression (471838 vs 335859). For users running video rendering, software compilation, or database workloads, the i7-13700F is the superior choice.

The Core Ultra 9 285H, despite losing the overall benchmark count, wins in categories that matter for specific applications. Its most striking victory is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 330 versus the i7-13700F’s 156, a -52.7% delta in favor of the Ultra 9. This suggests the Arrow Lake architecture handles certain algorithmic workloads much more efficiently. The mobile chip also wins in floating-point math (109190 vs 100422, an 8% edge), physics calculations (2513 vs 2236, an 11% lead), and single-thread performance in PassMark (4415 vs 4121, a 6.7% advantage). These wins point toward the Ultra 9 285H being better suited for scientific computing, physics simulations, and lightly threaded applications that rely on per-core efficiency.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different foundries and process nodes. The i7-13700F is built on Intel’s 10 nm process for the Raptor Lake-S desktop architecture, while the Ultra 9 285H uses TSMC’s 3 nm node for the Arrow Lake-H mobile design. This process difference partially explains why the Ultra 9 achieves competitive single-thread results at a much lower 45 W TDP compared to the i7-13700F’s 65 W.

Core configuration also differs significantly despite both having 16 cores. The i7-13700F supports 24 threads through Hyper-Threading, while the Ultra 9 285H has 16 threads with no such capability. Cache hierarchies are distinct: the desktop chip offers 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 2 MB L2 per core, whereas the mobile part has 24 MB L3 and 3 MB L2 per core. Interestingly, the Ultra 9 has a much larger L1 cache at 192 KB per core versus the i7-13700F’s 80 KB per core. The Ultra 9 also supports ECC memory and includes integrated Arc Graphics 140T, while the i7-13700F has no integrated graphics listed.

Memory support differs as well: the i7-13700F supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 uses DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a rated memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The desktop part provides 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the mobile chip offers 8 lanes. Socket compatibility is entirely different, with the i7-13700F using Intel Socket 1700 and the Ultra 9 using BGA 2049, meaning the two are not interchangeable in any system.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic single-core result is in Cinebench R23, where the i7-13700F scores 4532 against the Ultra 9’s 2129.5, a 112.8% lead. This is an outlier compared to other single-thread tests: Geekbench single-core shows only a 2.2% edge for the desktop chip (2225 vs 2178), and Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 10.5% advantage (1903 vs 1722). The Cinebench R15 single-core result also heavily favors the i7-13700F at 456 vs 313, a 45.7% delta. Interestingly, the Ultra 9 wins PassMark single-thread tests by 6.7%, suggesting the benchmark methodology captures different aspects of performance.

Multi-core results consistently favor the i7-13700F. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the largest gap at 54.5%, while Cinebench R20 and R15 show 10.5% and 1.8% leads respectively. Geekbench multi-core is close, with the i7-13700F ahead by only 2.1% (15058 vs 14743). PassMark multithread gives the desktop chip a 12.3% advantage. The pattern is clear: the i7-13700F’s extra threads (24 vs 16) provide a substantial advantage in heavily parallel workloads.

The Ultra 9’s wins come in more specialized areas. Its 52.7% lead in find prime numbers is the largest margin for either chip in any PassMark test. Floating-point math shows an 8% advantage, physics an 11% lead, and single-thread PassMark a 6.7% edge. These results indicate the Arrow Lake architecture performs better on certain instruction patterns, likely due to the larger L1 and L2 caches per core.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i7-13700F wins every multi-core benchmark in the comparison. Its largest lead is 54.5% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (32101 vs 20781.5), with other multi-core tests showing advantages between 1.8% and 12.3%.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 9 285H beat the i7-13700F in any benchmark?

A: Yes. The Ultra 9 wins 5 of 19 head-to-head comparisons: PassMark find prime numbers (330 vs 156, a 52.7% edge), floating-point math (109190 vs 100422, 8% ahead), physics (2513 vs 2236, 11% ahead), and both PassMark single-thread tests (4415 vs 4121, 6.7% ahead).

Q: Why does the i7-13700F have such a large Cinebench R23 single-core lead?

A: The 112.8% advantage in that specific test (4532 vs 2129.5) is unusual. Other single-core benchmarks show much smaller gaps: Geekbench single-core is only 2.2% in favor of the i7-13700F, and PassMark single-thread actually favors the Ultra 9 by 6.7%.

Q: What are the thread count differences?

A: The i7-13700F has 16 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The absence of Hyper-Threading in the Ultra 9 contributes to its multi-core deficits.

Q: Which chip has a smaller process node?

A: The Ultra 9 285H uses TSMC’s 3 nm process, while the i7-13700F uses Intel’s 10 nm node. This likely explains the Ultra 9’s competitive single-thread performance at a lower 45 W TDP versus 65 W.

Q: How do the cache configurations differ?

A: The i7-13700F has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9 285H has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9’s larger per-core caches support its wins in prime-number and floating-point workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-13700F | Intel Core Ultra 9 285H |

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

| Series | Core 13th Gen | Core Ultra Series 2 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Arrow Lake |

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

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Threads | 24 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.10 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2049 |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 30 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

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

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Arc Graphics 140T |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2023-01-03 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | $359 | $651 |

| Part Number | SRMBB | SRQAL |