Intel Core Ultra 5 226V vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a completely one-sided comparison. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every single recorded benchmark in the database, taking all 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core Ultra 5 226V records zero wins across the entire benchmark suite. This is not a close contest with trade-offs between workloads; the Ultra 9 285 dominates across every category measured, from single-threaded responsiveness to heavily parallel multi-core workloads.

The largest margins appear in multi-core intensive tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 against the Ultra 5 226V's 9848, a delta of -79.9% from the perspective of the smaller chip. That means the Ultra 9 285 delivers roughly five times the multi-core performance in that specific workload. Similarly, PassMark integer math shows the Ultra 9 285 at 164869 versus 38647, a -76.6% delta, and floating point math shows 194988 versus 52270, a -73.2% delta.

The narrowest gap appears in single-threaded tests. PassMark single thread scores 4881 for the Ultra 9 285 and 3754 for the Ultra 5 226V, a delta of -23.1%. This is still a decisive win, but it indicates that the architectural advantages of the larger desktop part shrink considerably when only one core is active. The single-core Cinebench tests tell a similar story: R23 single-core shows 6909 versus 1744 (-74.8%), while R15 single-core shows 696 versus 267 (-61.6%).

The Ultra 5 226V does hold its own in specific efficiency-oriented metrics that the database records, but those are not among the head-to-head benchmark wins. Its TDP of 17 watts versus 65 watts for the Ultra 9 285 indicates a fundamentally different power envelope, and its mobile market segment targets a different use case entirely. However, in pure performance terms, the data leaves no ambiguity: the Ultra 9 285 wins everywhere.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectures within the same Core Ultra Series 2 family. The Ultra 5 226V uses Lunar Lake, while the Ultra 9 285 uses Arrow Lake-S. Both are built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

The core configurations differ substantially. The Ultra 5 226V has 8 cores and 8 threads, with no hyperthreading. The Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, also without hyperthreading. This 3x core count advantage directly explains the massive multi-core benchmark gaps. The Ultra 9 285's base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost clock of 5.60 GHz both exceed the Ultra 5 226V's 2.10 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. Both parts share 192 KB of L1 per core, but the L2 differs: 2.5 MB per core on the Ultra 5 226V versus 3 MB per core on the Ultra 9 285. The L3 cache shows the biggest gap, with 8 MB shared on the Lunar Lake part versus 36 MB shared on the Arrow Lake part. That 28 MB difference in last-level cache contributes to the Ultra 9 285's advantage in data-heavy workloads like compression and encryption.

The Ultra 9 285 also carries a transistor count of 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die, while the database records no transistor or die size figures for the Ultra 5 226V. The Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 memory with a recorded bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and ECC memory enabled. The Ultra 5 226V's memory support is listed as unknown and dependent on motherboard, with no bandwidth figure recorded and no ECC support.

Platform differences are stark. The Ultra 5 226V uses Intel BGA 2833, a soldered mobile socket, while the Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851 for desktop. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Ultra 5 226V provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 9 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ as well, with the Arc 130V on the mobile part and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU on the desktop part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows the Ultra 9 285's dominance most clearly. In R15 multi-core, the Ultra 9 285 scores 4933 versus 1501, a -69.6% delta. R20 multi-core shows 20556 versus 6381 (-69%), and R23 multi-core shows 48945 versus 9848 (-79.9%). The single-core variants follow the same pattern: R15 at 696 versus 267 (-61.6%), R20 at 2901 versus 900 (-69%), and R23 at 6909 versus 1744 (-74.8%).

PassMark results reinforce this across every category. Data compression shows 602121 versus 170687 (-71.7%). Data encryption shows 46949 versus 12710 (-72.9%). Extended instructions show 45357 versus 14724 (-67.5%). Prime number finding shows 459 versus 166 (-63.8%). Floating point math shows 194988 versus 52270 (-73.2%). Integer math shows 164869 versus 38647 (-76.6%). Multithread shows 56602 versus 17850 (-68.5%). Physics shows 3598 versus 1449 (-59.7%). Random string sorting shows 73651 versus 20813 (-71.7%).

The closest contest in the entire dataset is PassMark single thread, where the Ultra 9 285 scores 4881 against the Ultra 5 226V's 3754 (-23.1%). Even here, the desktop part holds a clear advantage, but the margin is roughly one-third of what appears in the multi-core tests. This suggests that the Ultra 5 226V's Lunar Lake architecture is relatively competitive per core, but the Ultra 9 285's higher boost clock and larger cache still carry the day.

The average benchmark score places the Ultra 9 285 at 75488, which sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Ultra 5 226V averages 19368, at the 73rd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 9 285 include AMD EPYC 8224P (75582, -0.1%), AMD EPYC 4545P (75373, 0.2%), AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D (75716, -0.3%), and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 (75738, -0.3%). The Ultra 5 226V's nearest rivals include AMD Ryzen 5 7533HS (19364, 0%), Intel Core i5-1345U (19411, -0.2%), Intel Core i7-8700K (19238, 0.7%), and Intel Core i7-10700F (19499, -0.7%).

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in the database?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core Ultra 5 226V records zero wins.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 against the Ultra 5 226V's 9848, a delta of -79.9%. PassMark multithread shows 56602 versus 17850, a -68.5% delta.

Q: Is the single-threaded gap smaller than the multi-threaded gap?

A: Yes. PassMark single thread shows 4881 versus 3754, a -23.1% delta. This is the narrowest margin in the entire head-to-head set, compared to multi-core deltas ranging from -59.7% to -79.9%.

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

A: The Ultra 5 226V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: Both have 192 KB L1 per core. The Ultra 5 226V has 2.5 MB L2 per core and 8 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9 285 has 3 MB L2 per core and 36 MB shared L3.

Q: What market segments do these processors target?

A: The Ultra 5 226V is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 2833, while the Ultra 9 285 is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1851.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 226V | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 24 |

| Threads | 8 | 24 |

| Base clock | 2.10 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.50 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| TDP | 17 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2833 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Lunar Lake | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Lunar Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die size | Not recorded | 243 mm² |

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | Unknown, depends on motherboard | DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | Not recorded | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Arc 130V | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2024-09-23 | 2024-12-31 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $579 |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | No |

| Part number | SRPMQSRPMR | SRQD4 |

The Verdict

The data supports only one conclusion for performance: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the dominant processor in every measured category. Its 24 cores, higher clocks, larger caches, and desktop platform deliver benchmark scores that place it at the 95th percentile of all CPUs, versus the 73rd percentile for the Ultra 5 226V. The Ultra 9 285's average benchmark score of 75488 is roughly 3.9 times the Ultra 5 226V's 19368.

The Ultra 5 226V's advantages are not in raw performance but in power and platform. Its 17 W TDP versus 65 W, mobile BGA socket, and 4-lane PCIe configuration indicate a low-power laptop design. The Ultra 9 285's 65 W TDP, desktop socket, 20-lane PCIe, DDR5 support with ECC, and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth position it for high-throughput desktop workloads.

For users selecting between these two, the choice depends entirely on the target platform. The Ultra 5 226V belongs in a mobile system where power efficiency and compact packaging matter. The Ultra 9 285 belongs in a desktop where multi-core throughput, memory bandwidth, and PCIe expansion are priorities. The benchmark data shows no performance scenario where the Ultra 5 226V wins, but its existence in the mobile segment addresses a use case the desktop part cannot serve. The launch MSRP of $579 for the Ultra 9 285, combined with its 95th percentile standing, makes it the clear choice for desktop builds where performance is the primary criterion. The Ultra 5 226V remains the only option for its socket class, but it does so with substantially lower measured performance across the board.