Intel Core Ultra 5 225 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and Intel Core Ultra 9 285 are both desktop processors from the Core Ultra Series 2, sharing the same Arrow Lake-S architecture, 3 nm process node, and TSMC foundry. The database records show a stark performance hierarchy between the two, with the Ultra 9 285 winning every single head-to-head benchmark comparison. The Ultra 5 225 holds an 85th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the Ultra 9 285 sits at the 95th percentile, placing them in distinctly different performance tiers despite their shared architectural foundation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The performance gap is substantial and consistent across every workload category. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 against the Ultra 5 225's 25891, a delta of 47.1%. The single-core result follows the same pattern: 6909 versus 3655, also a 47.1% difference. This consistency suggests the Ultra 9 285's advantage is not workload-specific but rather a fundamental capability gap.

The Cinebench R20 results show an even wider divergence. Multi-core scores are 20556 for the Ultra 9 285 and 6317 for the Ultra 5 225, a 69.3% delta. Single-core in R20 shows the same 69.3% gap, with scores of 2901 and 891. These larger deltas in R20 compared to R23 indicate the workload scaling differs between test versions, but the Ultra 9 285 maintains its dominant position throughout.

PassMark integer math reveals the largest single delta: 164869 versus 65345, a 60.4% advantage for the Ultra 9 285. Floating point math shows a 52.8% delta, with scores of 194988 and 92038. Data compression favors the Ultra 9 285 by 49.7%, scoring 602121 against 302811. Data encryption shows a 52.5% delta, with 46949 versus 22285.

The smallest deltas appear in the single-threaded tests. PassMark single thread scores are 4881 for the Ultra 9 285 and 4412 for the Ultra 5 225, a 9.6% difference. This narrow margin in single-thread performance contrasts sharply with the multi-core deltas, suggesting the architectural per-core efficiency is similar, and the Ultra 9 285's advantage stems more from core count and clock speed.

PassMark find prime numbers shows a 22% delta, with 459 versus 358. Physics scores favor the Ultra 9 285 by 34.9%, at 3598 versus 2342. Extended instructions show a 40.1% delta, with 45357 versus 27162. Random string sorting favors the Ultra 9 285 by 50.3%, at 73651 versus 36590. The multi-thread PassMark score shows a 46.2% delta, with 56602 versus 30459.

Across all 17 recorded benchmarks, the Ultra 5 225 records zero wins. The Ultra 9 285 wins every test, with deltas ranging from 9.6% in single-thread to 69.3% in Cinebench R20.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy. The Ultra 9 285 outperforms the Ultra 5 225 in every measured category, with the smallest advantage being 9.6% in single-threaded work and the largest being 69.3% in Cinebench R20 multi-core. The average benchmark score for the Ultra 9 285 is 75488, while the Ultra 5 225 averages 36938, giving the Ultra 9 285 roughly double the overall performance.

The nearest rivals in the database contextualize each processor's standing. The Ultra 5 225 sits within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F, AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D, AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450, and Intel Core i9-12900T, with deltas of 0%, -0.2%, -0.4%, and -0.5% respectively. The Ultra 9 285 trades positions with the AMD EPYC 8224P, AMD EPYC 4545P, AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D, and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755, with deltas of -0.1%, 0.2%, -0.3%, and -0.3%.

The data indicates the Ultra 5 225 targets the mainstream desktop segment, competing directly with mid-range Ryzen 5 parts and a lower-tier Core i9. The Ultra 9 285 competes with server-class EPYC processors, placing it in a higher performance bracket entirely. The 24-core, 24-thread configuration of the Ultra 9 285 versus the 10-core, 10-thread Ultra 5 225 explains the multi-core dominance, while the boost clock difference of 5.60 GHz versus 4.90 GHz contributes to the single-thread advantage.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Arrow Lake-S architecture, codenamed Arrow Lake, and use the same 3 nm process node from TSMC. The transistor count is identical at 17,800 million, and the die size matches at 243 mm². This shared foundation means the architectural differences come down to configuration rather than design.

The core configuration differs significantly. The Ultra 5 225 uses 10 cores and 10 threads, while the Ultra 9 285 uses 24 cores and 24 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading, so thread count equals core count. The base clock of the Ultra 5 225 is 3.30 GHz, while the Ultra 9 285 sits lower at 2.50 GHz. The boost clock tells the opposite story: 4.90 GHz for the Ultra 5 225 and 5.60 GHz for the Ultra 9 285. The Ultra 9 285's higher boost clock explains its single-thread advantage despite the lower base clock.

Cache allocation differs in the L3 tier. Both processors use 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, but the L3 cache is 20 MB shared on the Ultra 5 225 and 36 MB shared on the Ultra 9 285. The larger L3 cache on the Ultra 9 285 supports its additional cores and helps maintain performance in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory support is identical: DDR5, dual-channel, with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe connectivity matches at Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics differ: the Ultra 5 225 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 execution units, while the Ultra 9 285 uses the same architecture with 64 execution units. The Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 5 225 does not. Both processors use the Intel Socket 1851, have a 65 W TDP, and are multiplier-locked.

Both processors are listed as Active in production status. The Ultra 9 285 has a launch MSRP of $579, while the Ultra 5 225 has a launch MSRP of $246.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins in single-threaded tests. PassMark single thread scores are 4881 for the Ultra 9 285 and 4412 for the Ultra 5 225, a 9.6% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 6909 versus 3655, a 47.1% delta.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: The Ultra 9 285 leads by 47.1% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (48945 versus 25891) and by 69.3% in Cinebench R20 multi-core (20556 versus 6317). PassMark multithread shows a 46.2% delta, with 56602 versus 30459.

Q: Do both processors use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Arrow Lake architecture, codenamed Arrow Lake-S, on a 3 nm process node from TSMC. They share the same transistor count of 17,800 million and die size of 243 mm², and both use Intel Socket 1851.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Ultra 5 225 has 10 cores and 10 threads. The Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Do the processors differ in memory support?

A: Both support DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 5 225 does not.

Q: How does the integrated graphics compare?

A: Both use Arc Xe-LPG Graphics, but with different execution unit counts. The Ultra 5 225 has 16 EU, while the Ultra 9 285 has 64 EU.

Where Each One Wins

The Ultra 9 285 wins across all 17 benchmarks in the database. Its largest advantages appear in multi-core and compute-heavy workloads: Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 69.3% delta, PassMark integer math shows 60.4%, and floating point math shows 52.8%. Data encryption and compression also favor the Ultra 9 285 heavily, with deltas of 52.5% and 49.7%. These results indicate the Ultra 9 285 is the appropriate choice for workloads that scale with core count and sustained multi-threaded throughput, such as rendering, encoding, and scientific computing.

The Ultra 5 225's closest result is in PassMark single thread, where it trails by only 9.6%. This narrow margin means the Ultra 5 225 delivers competitive per-core performance for lightly threaded tasks. Its lower core count, however, limits its capability in parallel workloads. The 10-core configuration with a 4.90 GHz boost clock makes it suitable for general desktop use where occasional single-thread bursts matter more than sustained multi-core output.

The Ultra 9 285's 24-core configuration and 5.60 GHz boost clock provide the highest recorded scores in every category. The 65 W TDP for both processors means the Ultra 9 285 delivers its substantial performance advantage within the same thermal envelope. The Ultra 5 225's 20 MB L3 cache versus the Ultra 9 285's 36 MB L3 cache further reinforces the performance tier separation.

For single-thread responsiveness, the Ultra 5 225 remains within 10% of the Ultra 9 285, but the multi-core results show a completely different class of performance. The data positions the Ultra 9 285 as the top performer in the Arrow Lake-S lineup, while the Ultra 5 225 serves as the entry point into the same architecture.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in core count, clock speeds, cache, ECC support, integrated graphics, and launch MSRP. The Ultra 5 225 uses 10 cores and 10 threads, while the Ultra 9 285 uses 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 3.30 GHz for the Ultra 5 225 and 2.50 GHz for the Ultra 9 285. Boost clocks are 4.90 GHz and 5.60 GHz respectively.

L3 cache is 20 MB shared on the Ultra 5 225 and 36 MB shared on the Ultra 9 285. L1 and L2 cache are identical at 192 KB per core and 3 MB per core. ECC memory support exists only on the Ultra 9 285. Integrated graphics differ: 16 execution units on the Ultra 5 225, 64 execution units on the Ultra 9 285. The launch MSRP is $246 for the Ultra 5 225 and $579 for the Ultra 9 285.

Identical specifications include the Arrow Lake-S architecture, 3 nm process node, TSMC foundry, 17,800 million transistors, 243 mm² die size, DDR5 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes, Intel Socket 1851, 65 W TDP, and locked multipliers. Both are desktop processors in the Core Ultra Series 2, produced by Intel, and listed as Active in production status.