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

FAQ

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of thermal design power?

A: The Ultra 5 225H has a TDP of 28, while the Ultra 9 285 has a TDP of 65. This indicates a substantial difference in power envelope between the mobile and desktop parts.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, exactly double the 18 MB shared L3 cache found on the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H.

Q: What is the difference in single-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Ultra 9 285 scores 6909 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Ultra 5 225H scores 1969. This represents a 71.5% advantage for the Ultra 9 285.

Q: Do these processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H uses Intel BGA 2049, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory (true), while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H does not (false).

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H and Intel Core Ultra 9 285 both belong to the Core Ultra Series 2 family and share the Arrow Lake architecture, but they target different market segments. The 225H is a mobile processor in the Arrow Lake-H codename class, while the 285 is a desktop processor in the Arrow Lake-S codename class. This distinction drives nearly every architectural difference between the two.

Both processors are built on a 3 nm process node from TSMC, and both use 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core. The fundamental divergence appears in the core count: the Ultra 5 225H provides 14 cores and 14 threads, whereas the Ultra 9 285 provides 24 cores and 24 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading, as both have thread counts equal to their core counts.

The L3 cache configuration differs substantially. The Ultra 5 225H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ultra 9 285 has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. That doubling of the last-level cache aligns with the desktop part's higher core count and larger die.

The integrated graphics solutions also differ. The Ultra 5 225H uses Arc Graphics 130T, while the Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The mobile processor's integrated graphics naming suggests a different configuration than the desktop part's 64 EU implementation.

PCIe lane availability is another architectural split. The Ultra 5 225H supports Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 9 285 supports Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). This gives the desktop processor significantly more expansion bandwidth for discrete GPUs and storage devices.

Memory support also separates the two. The Ultra 5 225H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, while the Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 only. Both use a dual-channel memory bus with 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, so the maximum throughput is identical, but the mobile part's support for LPDDR5X provides additional flexibility for thin-and-light designs.

The production status for both is listed as Active. The Ultra 9 285 also has recorded transistor and die size data: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Ultra 5 225H does not have these figures recorded in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data shows a one-sided outcome: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H does not win a single recorded test. However, the magnitude of the wins varies considerably across different workload types.

The Ultra 9 285 delivers its largest advantages in multi-threaded rendering workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 against the Ultra 5 225H's 14629.5, a 70.1% lead. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison and reflects the benefits of 24 cores versus 14 cores, plus the higher 65 TDP envelope versus 28.

Single-core performance also favors the desktop part, though by a slightly smaller margin. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 71.5% advantage for the Ultra 9 285 (6909 versus 1969). The smaller single-core gap appears in PassMark single-thread tests, where the Ultra 9 285 leads by only 12.8% (4881 versus 4258). This suggests that the architectural per-core performance is closer than the raw scores imply, but the desktop part's higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz against 4.90 GHz gives it the edge.

For integer and floating-point math workloads, the Ultra 9 285 shows strong leads. PassMark integer math has the desktop part at 164869 versus 68520, a 58.4% advantage. PassMark floating-point math shows 194988 versus 86540, a 55.6% lead. These results indicate that the Ultra 9 285 handles compute-heavy tasks with notably more throughput.

Data compression and encryption tasks also favor the Ultra 9 285 heavily. PassMark data compression shows 602121 versus 283451 (52.9% lead), and PassMark data encryption shows 46949 versus 21428 (54.4% lead). The Ultra 9 285's advantage in physics simulation is the smallest multi-threaded gap: PassMark physics scores 3598 versus 1877, a 47.8% lead.

The practical interpretation is that the Ultra 5 225H is positioned for mobile systems where the 28 TDP and BGA 2049 socket fit thin laptops, while the Ultra 9 285 is positioned for desktop systems where the 65 TDP and Socket 1851 allow sustained high performance. The database shows that the Ultra 9 285 sits at the 95th percentile among all CPUs, while the Ultra 5 225H sits at the 82nd percentile.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specification fields. The core count difference is 14 cores for the Ultra 5 225H versus 24 cores for the Ultra 9 285. Thread counts follow the same pattern: 14 threads versus 24 threads.

Base clock speeds differ: the Ultra 5 225H runs at 1.70 GHz base, while the Ultra 9 285 runs at 2.50 GHz base. Boost clocks also differ: 4.90 GHz for the Ultra 5 225H versus 5.60 GHz for the Ultra 9 285.

TDP is a major differentiator: 28 for the mobile part versus 65 for the desktop part. The socket types are entirely different: Intel BGA 2049 for the Ultra 5 225H, Intel Socket 1851 for the Ultra 9 285.

The codenames differ at the suffix level: Arrow Lake-H for the mobile part, Arrow Lake-S for the desktop part. The generation labels reflect this as well: "Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake-H)" versus "Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake)".

L3 cache differs: 18 MB shared for the Ultra 5 225H, 36 MB shared for the Ultra 9 285. L1 and L2 cache configurations are identical at 192 KB per core and 3 MB per core respectively.

Memory support differs: the Ultra 5 225H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 only. ECC memory support is false for the Ultra 5 225H and true for the Ultra 9 285.

PCIe lane counts differ: 8 lanes for the Ultra 5 225H versus 20 lanes for the Ultra 9 285, both Gen 5 (CPU only).

Integrated graphics differ: Arc Graphics 130T for the Ultra 5 225H, Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU for the Ultra 9 285.

Market segments differ: Mobile for the Ultra 5 225H, Desktop for the Ultra 9 285.

Release dates differ: the Ultra 5 225H was released on 2025-01-12, while the Ultra 9 285 was released on 2024-12-31.

The Ultra 9 285 has a recorded part number of SRQD4 and a launch MSRP of $579. The Ultra 5 225H has part number SRQAM and no recorded launch MSRP.

Transistor count and die size are recorded for the Ultra 9 285 (17,800 million transistors, 243 mm²) but not for the Ultra 5 225H. Both processors have locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data contains 17 recorded tests, all won by the Intel Core Ultra 9 285. The largest margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 against the Ultra 5 225H's 14629.5, a 70.1% deficit for the mobile part. This result reflects the combined effect of the desktop part's 24 cores, 36 MB L3 cache, and higher power envelope.

Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 71.5% lead for the Ultra 9 285, with scores of 6909 versus 1969. This is the largest single-core gap in the comparison and indicates that the desktop part's higher boost clock and desktop-specific tuning provide a substantial per-thread advantage.

The Cinebench R15 and R20 tests show more moderate gaps. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 9 285 scores 4933 versus 2397.5, a 51.4% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 20556 versus 10041, a 51.2% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 696 versus 288.5, a 58.5% lead, and Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2901 versus 1417, also a 51.2% lead.

PassMark tests reveal a consistent pattern of the Ultra 9 285 leading by roughly 50% to 58% in most workloads. PassMark multi-thread shows 56602 versus 28119, a 50.3% lead. PassMark integer math shows 164869 versus 68520, a 58.4% lead. PassMark floating-point math shows 194988 versus 86540, a 55.6% lead. PassMark extended instructions shows 45357 versus 21915, a 51.7% lead.

Data-oriented workloads follow the same trend. PassMark data compression shows 602121 versus 283451, a 52.9% lead. PassMark data encryption shows 46949 versus 21428, a 54.4% lead. PassMark random string sorting shows 73651 versus 33654, a 54.3% lead.

The smallest gaps appear in single-threaded tests. PassMark single-thread shows 4881 versus 4258, a 12.8% lead for the Ultra 9 285. This is the only test where the two processors are relatively close, suggesting that the per-core architecture of Arrow Lake is similar between the mobile and desktop variants. The desktop part's advantage in this test likely comes from its 5.60 GHz boost clock versus 4.90 GHz.

PassMark physics shows 3598 versus 1877, a 47.8% lead for the Ultra 9 285, the smallest multi-threaded gap. PassMark find prime numbers shows 459 versus 220, a 52.1% lead.

The average benchmark scores in the database summarize the overall gap. The Ultra 5 225H has an average benchmark score of 31508, while the Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75488. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 5 225H include the Intel Core i5-13500 with an average score of 31510, the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX at 31495, the Intel Core 7 240H at 31483, and the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 at 31473, all within 0.1% delta. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 9 285 include the AMD EPYC 8224P at 75582, the AMD EPYC 4545P at 75373, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D at 75716, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 at 75738, all within 0.3% delta.