Intel Core Ultra 5 228V vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V and Intel Core Ultra 9 285 represent two distinct extremes within Intel’s Core Ultra Series 2 lineup. The 228V is a Lunar Lake mobile processor designed for low power consumption, while the 285 is an Arrow Lake desktop flagship built for maximum throughput. The recorded data shows a complete sweep in the head-to-head benchmarks, with the Ultra 9 285 winning all 17 tests. The Ultra 5 228V does not win a single recorded comparison, yet its specifications and percentile ranking reveal a clear purpose that is distinct from raw performance supremacy.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results show no overlap in performance categories. The Ultra 9 285 dominates every single recorded workload, from single-threaded tasks to heavily parallel rendering and encryption workloads. The data indicates that the Ultra 9 285 is the only choice for compute-intensive desktop workloads, as it wins 17 out of 17 head-to-head tests against the 228V.

The Ultra 5 228V, however, has its own domain of advantage that is not captured in benchmark scores: the mobile segment. With a TDP of 17 watts, the 228V is built for the Intel BGA 2833 socket, which is a soldered mobile platform. The Ultra 9 285, by contrast, has a TDP of 65 watts and uses the Intel Socket 1851 for desktop builds. The 228V integrates the Arc 130V graphics, whereas the 285 uses the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The 228V's strength lies in its power envelope and mobile integration, not in its numeric benchmark scores.

The performance split is stark. The closest margin between the two processors is in the Passmark single-thread test, where the Ultra 9 285 scores 4881 against the 228V's 3836, a delta of -21.4%. The largest margin is in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the 285 scores 48945 against 9932, a delta of -79.7%. The Ultra 5 228V holds a 75th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the Ultra 9 285 sits at the 95th percentile. The average benchmark score for the 228V is 21440, compared to 75488 for the 285. The 285's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 8224P and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755, with deltas of -0.1% and -0.3% respectively, placing it squarely in high-end desktop territory. The 228V's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 2600, with a delta of -0.2%, showing it competes with older mid-range desktop parts despite being a modern low-power mobile chip.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same manufacturing foundation but diverge in nearly every other architectural aspect. Both are built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. The Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, while the Ultra 5 228V uses the Lunar Lake architecture. The 285 is a desktop part, and the 228V is a mobile part.

Core counts differ significantly. The Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra 5 228V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither processor supports hyperthreading, as thread counts equal core counts for both. The 285 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The 228V runs at a 2.10 GHz base clock and a 4.50 GHz boost clock. The 285's higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz gives it a clear single-thread advantage, which the benchmarks confirm.

Cache hierarchies also differ. Both processors have 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache is 2.5 MB per core on the 228V and 3 MB per core on the 285. The L3 cache is the most dramatic difference: the 228V has 8 MB shared, while the 285 has 36 MB shared. This larger shared cache on the 285 helps feed its 24 cores in multi-threaded workloads.

Memory support is another major divider. The 228V's memory support is listed as dependent on the motherboard, with a dual-channel memory bus. The 285 supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The 285 also supports ECC memory, while the 228V does not. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the 228V provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The 285's transistor count is recorded at 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die size. The 228V has no recorded transistor or die size data.

The Ultra 9 285 carries a launch MSRP of $579. The 228V has no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors have locked multipliers, so neither supports user overclocking. The 285 was released on 2024-12-31, while the 228V was released on 2024-09-23. Both are listed as active production parts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows the full extent of the 285's dominance. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the 285 scores 48945 against 9932, a delta of -79.7%. This is the largest performance gap in the entire dataset. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 285 scores 6909 against 1758, a delta of -74.6%. The R20 results follow the same pattern: multicore 20556 against 6491 (-68.4%) and single-core 2901 against 916 (-68.4%). In R15, the 285 scores 4933 against 1502.5 in multicore (-69.5%) and 696 against 267 in single-core (-61.6%).

The Passmark suite mirrors these results across all tested workloads. The 285 leads in data compression with 602121 against 173924 (-71.1%). In data encryption, the 285 scores 46949 against 13032 (-72.2%). Extended instructions show 45357 against 14801 (-67.4%). Prime number finding shows 459 against 168 (-63.4%). Floating point math shows 194988 against 53310 (-72.7%). Integer math shows 164869 against 39679 (-75.9%). The multithread test shows 56602 against 18227 (-67.8%). Physics shows 3598 against 1538 (-57.3%). Random string sorting shows 73651 against 21254 (-71.1%). The single-thread tests show 4881 against 3836 (-21.4%), which is the closest margin in the entire head-to-head comparison.

The pattern is consistent: the 285 wins by roughly 60% to 80% in most workloads, with the single-thread gap being the narrowest at just over 21%. The multicore gaps are particularly large due to the 24-core versus 8-core configuration. The single-thread gap is smaller but still decisive, driven by the 285's 5.60 GHz boost clock against the 228V's 4.50 GHz boost clock.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75488, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V has an average score of 21440.

Q: How large is the multicore performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Ultra 5 228V scores 9932, a delta of -79.7% in favor of the 285.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores?

A: No. The Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra 5 228V has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Ultra 5 228V has a TDP of 17 watts, while the Ultra 9 285 has a TDP of 65 watts.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory. The Ultra 5 228V does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the closest benchmark margin between the two processors?

A: The closest margin is in the Passmark single-thread test, where the Ultra 9 285 scores 4881 against the 228V's 3836, a delta of -21.4%.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the superior processor in every recorded benchmark, with an average score of 75488 and a 95th percentile ranking. It wins all 17 head-to-head tests, with margins ranging from -21.4% in single-thread to -79.7% in Cinebench R23 multicore. Its 24 cores, 36 MB of L3 cache, 5.60 GHz boost clock, and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth make it the definitive choice for desktop workloads that demand maximum performance.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V, with its 8 cores, 8 MB of L3 cache, and 17 watt TDP, cannot compete on raw performance. Its 75th percentile ranking and average score of 21440 place it in a different class entirely. However, the 228V is not a failed product; it is a mobile processor on the Intel BGA 2833 socket with a 4.50 GHz boost clock and integrated Arc 130V graphics. The database shows that it is competitive with parts like the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and Intel Core i9-11900H, which are older desktop processors. For a low-power mobile platform, that is a reasonable performance level. The Ultra 9 285 is the desktop flagship, and the Ultra 5 228V is the mobile efficiency part. The recorded data supports no other conclusion: pick the 285 for desktop compute, and the 228V only where its 17 watt mobile form factor is required.