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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A does not register a single win, with the Ultra 9 285 taking every test. The most decisive margins appear in compute-heavy workloads. In PassMark integer math, the Ultra 9 285 scores 164869 against 88626 for the Ultra 5 235A, a 46.2% difference. Floating point math shows a similar pattern: 194988 versus 118778, a 39.1% gap. Data compression results favor the Ultra 9 285 by 34.6%, with scores of 602121 and 393800 respectively. Data encryption shows a 35.8% difference, with 46949 versus 30136.

Cinebench results are consistent across all three versions tested. The R15 multicore test gives the Ultra 9 285 a score of 4933 versus 3289 for the Ultra 5 235A, a 33.3% deficit. R20 multicore shows 20556 against 13705, again a 33.3% gap. R23 multicore follows the same pattern: 48945 versus 32633, also a 33.3% difference. Single-core Cinebench results tell the same story. R15 single-core scores 696 versus 464, R20 single-core scores 2901 versus 1934, and R23 single-core scores 6909 versus 4607, all with a 33.3% delta.

The narrowest margin appears in PassMark single-thread tests. The Ultra 9 285 scores 4881 while the Ultra 5 235A scores 4557, a 6.6% difference. This stands in contrast to the wider gaps seen in multithreaded workloads. PassMark multithread shows 56602 versus 38392, a 32.2% gap. Physics simulation follows with 3598 against 2437, a 32.3% difference. Random string sorting shows 73651 versus 49489, a 32.8% gap. Extended instructions score 45357 versus 31625, a 30.3% difference. The smallest delta among the multithreaded tests is in prime number finding, where the Ultra 9 285 scores 459 versus 392, a 14.6% advantage.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same underlying Arrow Lake architecture on the Arrow Lake-S codename. They use the same 3 nm process node from TSMC, with the same 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size. Both fit the Intel Socket 1851 and belong to the Core Ultra Series 2 family. The core counts differ substantially. The Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts for both.

Clock speeds show a tradeoff between base and boost. The Ultra 5 235A has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Ultra 9 285 has a lower base clock of 2.50 GHz but a higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz. Both carry a 65 TDP. Cache configurations differ in the shared L3 pool. The Ultra 5 235A has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ultra 9 285 has 36 MB. L1 cache is 192 KB per core for both, and L2 cache is 3 MB per core for both.

Memory support is DDR5 with dual-channel bus for both, and both show 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth. PCIe capabilities match: Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics differ. The Ultra 5 235A uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 EU, while the Ultra 9 285 doubles that to 64 EU. ECC memory support is present only on the Ultra 9 285; the Ultra 5 235A does not support it. The release dates differ, with the Ultra 9 285 appearing earlier at the end of 2024 and the Ultra 5 235A arriving mid-2025.

Where Each One Wins

The Ultra 9 285 wins every recorded benchmark, but the magnitude of its advantage varies by workload type. The largest deltas appear in integer math, where the 46.2% gap indicates a strong scaling with the additional 10 cores. Floating point math shows a 39.1% advantage, also favoring the higher core count. Data encryption and compression show 35.8% and 34.6% gaps respectively, indicating solid gains in memory-heavy operations. Cinebench multicore tests consistently show a 33.3% advantage, which suggests that the Ultra 9 285 delivers roughly one-third more performance in rendering workloads.

The single-thread results present a different picture. The 6.6% gap in PassMark single-thread is modest compared to the multicore margins. This indicates that the higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz on the Ultra 9 285 provides only a small advantage in single-threaded tasks over the 5.00 GHz boost of the Ultra 5 235A. The Ultra 5 235A compensates with a higher base clock of 3.40 GHz versus 2.50 GHz, but the benchmark data shows the Ultra 9 285 still leads in single-thread performance.

For workloads that depend on shared cache, the Ultra 9 285 has a clear edge with 36 MB of L3 versus 24 MB. This likely contributes to the advantages seen in data compression and random string sorting, where larger working sets can reside in cache. The Ultra 5 235A retains value in scenarios where the 65 TDP and lower core count suffice, but the data does not show any test where it outperforms the Ultra 9 285.

The Verdict

The benchmark results indicate that the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the superior processor in every measured category. Its 24 cores and 24 threads deliver consistent gains across Cinebench and PassMark workloads, with the largest advantages in integer math at 46.2% and floating point at 39.1%. The 33.3% Cinebench advantage across R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests confirms that rendering and 3D workloads scale well with the additional cores. Even in single-threaded tests, where the gap narrows to 6.6%, the Ultra 9 285 still leads.

The Ultra 5 235A offers a lower base clock advantage at 3.40 GHz versus 2.50 GHz, but this does not translate into a benchmark win. Its 14 cores and 14 threads place it well below the Ultra 9 285 in multithreaded performance. The smaller 24 MB L3 cache also puts it at a disadvantage in cache-sensitive workloads. The data shows no scenario where the Ultra 5 235A takes the lead.

The Ultra 9 285 also carries ECC memory support, a feature absent from the Ultra 5 235A. Its integrated graphics with 64 EU double the execution units of the 24 EU on the Ultra 5 235A. The launch MSRP for the Ultra 9 285 is $579, while the Ultra 5 235A has a launch MSRP of $269. The benchmark data supports the performance hierarchy implied by these specifications.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 versus 32633 for the Ultra 5 235A, a 33.3% advantage.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: In PassMark single-thread, the Ultra 9 285 scores 4881 while the Ultra 5 235A scores 4557, a 6.6% gap.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads.

Q: Do both processors use the same process node?

A: Yes, both use the 3 nm process from TSMC with 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size.

Q: Does the Ultra 5 235A support ECC memory?

A: No, ECC memory support is available only on the Ultra 9 285.

Q: What is the largest benchmark gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark integer math, where the Ultra 9 285 leads by 46.2% with 164869 versus 88626.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 235A | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 |

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

| Cores | 14 | 24 |

| Threads | 14 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 3.40 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| Release Date | 2025-07-28 | 2024-12-31 |

| Launch MSRP | $269 | $579 |

| Part Number | SRWPN | SRQD4 |

All other specifications match: 3 nm process node, TSMC foundry, 17,800 million transistors, 243 mm² die size, Intel Socket 1851, Arrow Lake architecture, Arrow Lake-S codename, DDR5 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes, 192 KB L1 cache per core, 3 MB L2 cache per core, 65 TDP, and locked multiplier.