Intel Core i9-13980HX vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285T Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T and the Intel Core i9-13980HX represent two distinct approaches to high-core-count processing, separated by a generation and a market segment. The data shows a 24-core desktop part built on a 3 nm process facing a 24-core mobile part on a 10 nm process, with the benchmark results revealing a complex split between single-threaded efficiency and raw multi-threaded throughput. This analysis walks through the numbers to determine where each processor holds a definitive edge.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Intel Core i9-13980HX has 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T has 24 threads. Both have 24 cores, but the i9-13980HX supports Hyper-Threading, giving it 8 additional threads.

Q: What is the difference in their average benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T has an average benchmark score of 51310, placing it in the 91st percentile. The Intel Core i9-13980HX has an average score of 50398, placing it in the 90th percentile, making the Ultra 9 285T about 1.8% higher on average.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core i9-13980HX has a higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz, compared to the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T's boost clock of 5.40 GHz. However, the Ultra 9 285T has a lower base clock of 1.40 GHz versus the i9-13980HX's 2.20 GHz.

Q: How do their L3 cache sizes compare?

A: Both processors feature a shared L3 cache of 36 MB. The primary cache differences are in L1 and L2, where the Ultra 9 285T has 192 KB and 3 MB per core, respectively, while the i9-13980HX has 80 KB and 2 MB per core.

Q: Which processor supports more memory types?

A: The Intel Core i9-13980HX supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T supports only DDR5 memory. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: What is the difference in their TDP ratings?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T has a TDP of 35 watts, while the Intel Core i9-13980HX has a higher TDP of 55 watts. This indicates the Ultra 9 285T is designed for lower power consumption.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two CPUs is substantial. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T is built on the Arrow Lake architecture using a 3 nm process from TSMC, featuring 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. In contrast, the Intel Core i9-13980HX uses the older Raptor Lake architecture on Intel's 10 nm process, with a slightly larger die size of 257 mm² and no transistor count listed in the data.

The core configurations differ significantly. Both parts have 24 cores, but the Ultra 9 285T has 24 threads, indicating it lacks Hyper-Threading. The i9-13980HX has 32 threads, meaning it utilizes Hyper-Threading to extract more parallelism from its 24 cores. This is a fundamental design choice: Arrow Lake focuses on efficiency and native core performance, while Raptor Lake leverages simultaneous multithreading.

Cache layouts also diverge. The Ultra 9 285T provides a larger per-core L1 cache of 192 KB and L2 cache of 3 MB, whereas the i9-13980HX offers 80 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core. Both share a 36 MB L3 cache. The integrated graphics differ as well, with the Ultra 9 285T featuring Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the i9-13980HX includes UHD Graphics 770.

The memory controllers reflect their respective generations. The Ultra 9 285T supports only DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the i9-13980HX supports both DDR4 and DDR5, though its bandwidth is not listed. The Ultra 9 285T is also a desktop part on the Intel Socket 1851, whereas the i9-13980HX is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1964, with the i9-13980HX featuring an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a clear pattern of wins for each processor, though the margins vary widely. The Intel Core i9-13980HX wins 9 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T wins 8, making the overall competition nearly even but with distinct strengths.

The most decisive win for the Ultra 9 285T comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 4739 against the i9-13980HX's 2110, a massive 124.6% advantage. This is echoed in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Ultra 9 285T scores 477 versus 304.5, a 56.7% lead. The PassMark single-thread test also favors the Ultra 9 285T, with a score of 4576 compared to 4252, a 7.6% advantage. These results indicate a clear single-thread performance superiority for the Arrow Lake part.

In multi-core tests, the situation is more nuanced. The i9-13980HX wins Cinebench R15 multi-core with a score of 4717 versus 3384, a 28.3% margin. It also leads in Cinebench R20 multi-core (16187 vs 14100, -12.9% for the Ultra 9 285T). However, in the more modern Cinebench R23 multi-core test, the Ultra 9 285T reverses the trend, scoring 33573 against 30273, a 10.9% win. The PassMark multi-thread test goes to the i9-13980HX, which scores 46409 versus 39931, a 14% advantage.

The i9-13980HX dominates in several specific workloads. In PassMark data compression, it scores 588306 versus 384140, a 34.7% lead. It also wins in integer math (166455 vs 132433, -20.4%), random string sorting (66125 vs 47695, -27.9%), extended instructions (33868 vs 27477, -18.9%), and data encryption (35332 vs 32061, -9.3%). These wins suggest the Hyper-Threading advantage and higher clock speeds benefit heavily threaded integer and compression tasks.

Conversely, the Ultra 9 285T shows strength in other areas. It wins PassMark find prime numbers by a wide margin (345 vs 191, 80.6%) and floating-point math (137923 vs 118645, 16.2%). It also wins PassMark physics (2842 vs 2575, 10.4%). These results point to superior per-core efficiency and floating-point capability in the Arrow Lake architecture.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T uses the Arrow Lake-S codename with an "Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake)" generation, while the Intel Core i9-13980HX uses Raptor Lake-HX with a "Core i9 (Raptor Lake-HX)" generation. The process nodes are different: 3 nm from TSMC for the Ultra 9 285T versus 10 nm from Intel for the i9-13980HX.

Clock speeds show a mixed picture. The i9-13980HX has a higher base clock of 2.20 GHz and boost clock of 5.60 GHz, while the Ultra 9 285T has a lower base clock of 1.40 GHz but a still-high boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The TDP differs significantly, with the Ultra 9 285T rated at 35 watts and the i9-13980HX at 55 watts.

The sockets are incompatible, with the Ultra 9 285T using Intel Socket 1851 and the i9-13980HX using Intel BGA 1964. The market segments differ, with the Ultra 9 285T being a desktop processor and the i9-13980HX being a mobile processor. The launch dates are separated by two years, with the Ultra 9 285T releasing on 2025-01-06 and the i9-13980HX on 2023-01-03.

Memory support differs, with the Ultra 9 285T supporting only DDR5 and the i9-13980HX supporting both DDR4 and DDR5. The Ultra 9 285T has a specified memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the i9-13980HX has no listed bandwidth. The integrated graphics differ, with the Ultra 9 285T featuring Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU and the i9-13980HX featuring UHD Graphics 770.

The multiplier is unlocked on the i9-13980HX but locked on the Ultra 9 285T. The part numbers are SRQD3 for the Ultra 9 285T and SRME9 for the i9-13980HX. The launch MSRP is $549 for the Ultra 9 285T and $668 for the i9-13980HX.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T is the clear winner in single-threaded and latency-sensitive workloads. Its 124.6% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 56.7% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core demonstrate a significant architectural advantage in per-core performance. It also wins in floating-point math, physics simulations, and prime number finding, making it suitable for scientific computing, financial modeling, and applications that rely on heavy floating-point calculations or single-threaded responsiveness.

The Ultra 9 285T also shows a distinct advantage in power efficiency, with its 35-watt TDP versus 55 watts for the i9-13980HX. This makes it a better fit for compact desktop systems or environments where thermal output is a concern. Its newer architecture and larger L1 and L2 caches contribute to its efficiency and per-core performance gains. For users who prioritize responsiveness in everyday tasks and lightly-threaded applications, the Ultra 9 285T is the stronger choice.

The Intel Core i9-13980HX wins in heavily threaded integer and compression workloads. Its 34.7% lead in data compression and 20.4% lead in integer math highlight its strength in tasks like file archiving, data processing, and code compilation. The 32-thread count gives it a clear advantage in parallel workloads that scale well with additional threads, as evidenced by its 14% lead in PassMark multi-thread and 28.3% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core.

The i9-13980HX also wins in memory-intensive operations like random string sorting (27.9% lead) and extended instructions (18.9% lead), making it suitable for database workloads, encryption, and software development. Its unlocked multiplier and higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz offer overclocking potential for users who need to extract maximum performance. For mobile workstations and laptops where the 55-watt TDP is acceptable, the i9-13980HX provides superior throughput in multi-threaded content creation and productivity tasks.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload priorities. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T is the better option for users who need maximum single-thread performance and energy efficiency. Its 124.6% advantage in Cinebench R23 single-core and 16.2% lead in floating-point math make it ideal for interactive applications, scientific simulations, and tasks where per-core speed dominates. The 35-watt TDP and 3 nm process also make it a compelling choice for small-form-factor desktops or systems that prioritize low power consumption.

The Intel Core i9-13980HX is the stronger performer in multi-threaded integer workloads. Its 34.7% lead in data compression and 28.3% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core demonstrate its capability in parallel processing. The 32 threads and unlocked multiplier provide flexibility for overclocking and heavy multitasking. For mobile users or those needing maximum throughput in video encoding, 3D rendering, or software compilation, the i9-13980HX offers superior performance.

The average benchmark scores are close, with the Ultra 9 285T at 51310 and the i9-13980HX at 50398, a difference of about 1.8%. This suggests that for general mixed workloads, the two processors are comparable. The deciding factor comes down to specific application needs: choose the Ultra 9 285T for single-threaded efficiency and lower power draw, or choose the i9-13980HX for multi-threaded integer performance and overclocking headroom. The Ultra 9 285T also has the advantage of a newer release date and a lower launch MSRP of $549, but the final choice should be driven by the workload profile rather than price alone.