Intel Core Ultra 5 235 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and Intel Core Ultra 9 285 are both desktop processors from Intel’s Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake architecture and fabricated on a 3 nm process by TSMC. They share the same transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², but they target different performance segments. The Ultra 5 235 is a 14-core, 14-thread part with a 65 W TDP, while the Ultra 9 285 is a 24-core, 24-thread part also rated at 65 W TDP. Both use the Intel Socket 1851, support dual-channel DDR5 memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, and provide Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes from the CPU. The database records show the Ultra 9 285 winning all 17 head-to-head benchmarks, with the largest margins in multi-core workloads. The Ultra 5 235 sits at the 89th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 9 285 reaches the 95th percentile, reflecting their different positions in the performance hierarchy.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 compare to the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 in multi-core rendering?

A: The Ultra 9 285 is significantly faster. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 48,945 versus 14,769 for the Ultra 5 235, a difference of 69.8% in favor of the Ultra 9 285.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache between the two?

A: The Ultra 9 285 has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ultra 5 235 has 24 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: Yes, both support dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. However, the Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 5 235 does not.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75,488, compared to 46,062 for the Ultra 5 235. This places the Ultra 9 285 at the 95th percentile and the Ultra 5 235 at the 89th percentile.

Q: How close are the single-thread scores of the two processors?

A: The gap is modest. In PassMark single-thread tests, the Ultra 9 285 scores 4,881, which is 7.5% ahead of the Ultra 5 235’s 4,516.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Arrow Lake-S codename and the Core Ultra Series 2 generation, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The transistor count is identical at 17,800 million, and the die size is the same at 243 mm². The core configuration is the primary architectural difference: the Ultra 5 235 has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. Neither processor uses hyper-threading, so thread counts equal core counts.

Cache hierarchies are similar in structure but differ in capacity. Both have 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache is shared, with the Ultra 5 235 offering 24 MB and the Ultra 9 285 offering 36 MB, a 50% increase for the higher-tier part. Clock speeds also differ: the Ultra 5 235 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the Ultra 9 285 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The lower base clock of the Ultra 9 285 is offset by its higher core count and higher boost capability.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Ultra 5 235 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 execution units, while the Ultra 9 285 uses the same architecture but with 64 execution units. Both processors are locked, with no unlocked multiplier, and both are produced for the desktop market segment. The Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the Ultra 5 235. Both have the same PCIe configuration: Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear performance stratification. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark, with particularly large advantages in multi-core workloads. Its 24 cores and 36 MB of L3 cache deliver a 69.8% lead over the Ultra 5 235 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, and its average benchmark score of 75,488 is 64% higher than the Ultra 5 235’s 46,062. The Ultra 9 285 also has a higher boost clock at 5.60 GHz versus 5.00 GHz, and it includes ECC memory support, which the Ultra 5 235 lacks.

The Ultra 5 235 is the more modest part, with a lower core count and smaller cache, but it still holds the 89th percentile among all CPUs. Its base clock of 3.40 GHz is higher than the Ultra 9 285’s 2.50 GHz, but that does not translate into a single-thread win: the Ultra 9 285 leads by 7.5% in PassMark single-thread tests. For users prioritizing multi-threaded performance, rendering, or data-heavy workloads, the Ultra 9 285 is the clear choice from this data. For those with lighter workloads or a preference for lower core counts, the Ultra 5 235 remains a capable desktop processor, though it trails the Ultra 9 285 in all measured areas.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The Ultra 5 235 has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 3.40 GHz for the Ultra 5 235 and 2.50 GHz for the Ultra 9 285. Boost clocks are 5.00 GHz and 5.60 GHz, respectively. L3 cache is 24 MB for the Ultra 5 235 and 36 MB for the Ultra 9 285. The Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 5 235 does not. Integrated graphics differ: 24 execution units on the Ultra 5 235 versus 64 execution units on the Ultra 9 285. The launch MSRP for the Ultra 5 235 is $257, and for the Ultra 9 285 it is $579. Both processors have a TDP of 65 W, use the same socket, and have identical memory bandwidth and PCIe configurations. The release dates are close, with the Ultra 5 235 released on 2025-01-06 and the Ultra 9 285 on 2024-12-31.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The largest margins appear in Cinebench tests, where the Ultra 9 285 is consistently 69.8% ahead of the Ultra 5 235. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the scores are 48,945 versus 14,769. Single-core Cinebench R23 shows 6,909 versus 2,085, also a 69.8% difference. This pattern holds across R15 and R20 as well, with the same 69.8% delta in both multi-core and single-core tests.

PassMark results show a narrower but still decisive gap. The biggest PassMark difference is in integer math, where the Ultra 9 285 scores 164,869 versus 87,948, a 46.7% lead. Floating-point math shows a 39.5% difference, with scores of 194,988 and 117,951. Data encryption is 37.6% higher on the Ultra 9 285, at 46,949 versus 29,293. Data compression is 35.1% higher, at 602,121 versus 390,711. Random string sorting is 33.5% higher, at 73,651 versus 48,980. PassMark multithread is 33.2% higher, at 56,602 versus 37,816. Physics tests show a 28.6% difference, with 3,598 versus 2,570. Extended instructions are 27.8% higher, at 45,357 versus 32,752. The smallest PassMark gap is in find prime numbers, where the Ultra 9 285 leads by 19.2%, with scores of 459 versus 371. Single-thread PassMark shows only a 7.5% difference, at 4,881 versus 4,516.

The average benchmark scores reflect this overall dominance: the Ultra 9 285 averages 75,488, while the Ultra 5 235 averages 46,062. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 5 235 include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 with an average score of 46,030, a 0.1% difference, and the Intel Core i9-13900HX at 46,098, a -0.1% difference. The Ultra 9 285’s nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 8224P at 75,582, a -0.1% difference, and the AMD EPYC 4545P at 75,373, a 0.2% difference.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins in every measured workload, but the size of its advantage varies by task. Multi-threaded and compute-heavy applications see the largest gains. Cinebench multi-core tests show a 69.8% lead, making the Ultra 9 285 the stronger choice for rendering and CPU-intensive batch work. PassMark integer and floating-point math tests also show large advantages, at 46.7% and 39.5% respectively, indicating strong performance in simulation, scientific computing, and general number crunching.

The Ultra 9 285 also leads in data-oriented tasks. Data compression is 35.1% faster, data encryption is 37.6% faster, and random string sorting is 33.5% faster. These results suggest better handling of archival, database, and encryption workloads. PassMark multithread shows a 33.2% advantage, confirming that the extra cores on the Ultra 9 285 scale well in parallel tasks. Physics simulation is 28.6% faster, and extended instructions are 27.8% faster, which benefits code using modern instruction sets.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 does not win any benchmark, but its closest relative performance is in single-thread tests. The PassMark single-thread gap is only 7.5%, which indicates that for lightly threaded applications, the Ultra 5 235 is not drastically slower. Its higher base clock of 3.40 GHz versus 2.50 GHz does not overcome the Ultra 9 285’s higher boost clock and likely better single-core efficiency, but the margin is small. For users with workloads that are mostly single-threaded, the Ultra 5 235 offers a more modest reduction in performance compared to the multi-core gaps. The Ultra 5 235’s 89th percentile ranking also shows it is a solid processor in absolute terms, even though it trails the 95th-percentile Ultra 9 285.