Intel Core i9-13900F vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285T Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear overall winner, but the margin of victory varies dramatically depending on the workload. The Intel Core i9-13900F takes 12 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T manages 5 wins. The most lopsided result comes in PassMark data compression, where the i9-13900F scores 635,147 against the Ultra 9 285T’s 384,140, a 65.3% advantage. This is the single largest delta in the entire dataset.

Cinebench results are consistently one-sided. Across all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core), the i9-13900F wins by exactly 21.9% in the multi-core variants and 22.0% in the R15 single-core test. The R20 and R23 single-core deltas both sit at 21.9%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i9-13900F posts 40,928 versus the Ultra 9 285T’s 33,573. This consistency suggests a fundamental performance gap that scales uniformly across rendering workloads.

PassMark integer math shows a 42% lead for the i9-13900F (188,022 vs 132,433), while random string sorting favors it by 47.7% (70,441 vs 47,695). Extended instructions go to the i9-13900F by 32.9% (36,525 vs 27,477). Data encryption is closer but still clearly in its favor: 38,214 vs 32,061, a 19.2% margin. The PassMark multithread score shows a 24.4% gap (49,693 vs 39,931).

The Ultra 9 285T’s wins are narrower but meaningful. In PassMark find prime numbers, it scores 345 against the i9-13900F’s 204, which is a 40.9% advantage—the largest win for the Ultra 9. Floating point math goes to the Ultra 9 by 5% (137,923 vs 131,007). PassMark physics shows a slim 2.7% edge (2,842 vs 2,766). Single-thread performance, measured by PassMark single thread and singlethread (identical scores), goes to the Ultra 9 by 3.7% (4,576 vs 4,406).

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the i9-13900F averages 51,730, while the Ultra 9 285T averages 51,310. The delta is only 0.8% in favor of the i9-13900F. Both CPUs sit in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. The nearest rival data confirms they are closely matched overall: the i9-13900F’s nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X at 51,947 (a -0.4% delta), while the Ultra 9 285T’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i9-14900T at 51,015 (a 0.6% delta). Interestingly, each CPU appears in the other’s nearest rival list, with a -0.8% delta for the Ultra 9 when compared against the i9-13900F.

Where Each One Wins

The i9-13900F dominates in multi-threaded productivity and data-heavy workloads. Its 24.4% lead in PassMark multithread is paired with a 21.9% edge across all Cinebench multi-core tests, making it the clear choice for rendering, video encoding, and any CPU-bound parallel task. The 65.3% gap in data compression and 47.7% lead in random string sorting indicate strong memory subsystem performance for archival and database-style operations. Integer math, with a 42% advantage, points to general computation tasks favoring the i9-13900F.

The Ultra 9 285T wins in specific, less common scenarios. Its 40.9% lead in prime number finding suggests better algorithm efficiency in certain mathematical workloads, possibly due to architectural improvements in the 3 nm process. Floating point math favors it by 5%, which could translate to advantages in scientific computing or 3D rendering that relies heavily on FPU throughput. The 3.7% single-thread lead in PassMark means lightly-threaded applications, such as many legacy games or single-threaded productivity tools, may run slightly faster on the Ultra 9. The 2.7% physics score edge is minor but consistent with the single-thread trend.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i9-13900F is the faster CPU in the majority of benchmarks, and its wins are often by large margins. For users whose workloads involve Cinebench-style rendering, data compression, encryption, or integer-heavy computation, the i9-13900F is the superior choice. The 21.9% Cinebench multi-core lead alone is decisive for content creation. The 65.3% data compression advantage makes it the pick for anyone handling archives, backups, or file server duties.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T is not without merit. Its single-thread PassMark lead of 3.7% and floating point edge of 5% suggest that certain workloads—particularly those that are latency-sensitive or FPU-bound—may perform better. The 40.9% lead in prime number finding is notable, but this is a narrow benchmark that may not translate to real-world applications. The 35W TDP compared to the i9-13900F’s 65W TDP indicates the Ultra 9 is substantially more power-efficient, which matters for compact builds or systems where heat output is a concern. However, the benchmark data does not show any power consumption figures, so this cannot be quantified further.

Pick the i9-13900F for maximum multi-threaded performance and data processing. Pick the Ultra 9 285T if single-thread latency, floating point throughput, or power efficiency are higher priorities than raw multi-core scores. The overall average score difference is only 0.8%, but the distribution of wins heavily favors the i9-13900F in the benchmarks that matter most for heavy workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher Cinebench R23 multi-core score?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900F scores 40,928, which is 21.9% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T’s 33,573.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T win any benchmark by a large margin?

A: Yes, it wins PassMark find prime numbers by 40.9% (345 vs 204), which is its largest victory in the dataset.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores between the two CPUs?

A: The i9-13900F averages 51,730, while the Ultra 9 285T averages 51,310, a difference of 0.8% in favor of the i9-13900F.

Q: Which CPU has better single-thread performance in PassMark?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T scores 4,576, which is 3.7% higher than the i9-13900F’s 4,406.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each CPU have in the head-to-head comparisons?

A: The i9-13900F wins 12 benchmarks, while the Ultra 9 285T wins 5.

Q: Are both CPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are in the 91st percentile of all CPUs.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs represent distinct architectural generations. The i9-13900F is built on Raptor Lake-S, using Intel’s 10 nm process node, while the Ultra 9 285T uses Arrow Lake-S on a 3 nm node fabricated by TSMC. The i9-13900F has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Ultra 9 285T also has 24 cores but only 24 threads—no hyperthreading. The i9-13900F boosts to 5.60 GHz, versus 5.40 GHz for the Ultra 9. Base clocks differ significantly: 2000 MHz for the i9-13900F versus 1400 MHz for the Ultra 9.

Cache layouts diverge substantially. The i9-13900F has 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, while the Ultra 9 285T has 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core. Both share 36 MB of L3. The Ultra 9’s larger per-core cache likely contributes to its single-thread wins.

Memory support differs: the i9-13900F supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 285T supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory. The Ultra 9 lists a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s; no such figure is provided for the i9-13900F. Both support ECC memory. PCIe configuration is identical: Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

The Ultra 9 285T includes integrated graphics (Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU), while the i9-13900F has no integrated graphics listed. The Ultra 9 uses Socket 1851, while the i9-13900F uses Socket 1700. The Ultra 9 has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die; the i9-13900F’s transistor count is not listed, but its die size is 257 mm². The i9-13900F has a 65W TDP, while the Ultra 9 285T has a 35W TDP. Both CPUs have locked multipliers. The i9-13900F launched on 2023-01-03 with a launch MSRP of $524, while the Ultra 9 285T launched on 2025-01-06 with a launch MSRP of $549.