Intel Core Ultra 5 245T vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 records an average benchmark score of 75488, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T records 38194. The Ultra 9 285 places in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Ultra 5 245T sits in the 86th percentile.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Ultra 9 285 scores 4881 in PassMark single-thread testing, which is 10.5% higher than the Ultra 5 245T's 4367. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 9 285 scores 6909 versus 3699 for the Ultra 5 245T, a 46.5% gap.

Q: Are both processors built on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Arrow Lake architecture on the TSMC 3 nm process node. They share the same transistor count of 17,800 million and the same die size of 243 mm².

Q: What is the difference in core counts?

A: The Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Ultra 5 245T has 14 cores and 14 threads. Neither processor supports Hyper-Threading, as thread counts match core counts exactly.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory and expansion features?

A: Yes, both support DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both offer PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU and include integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Ultra 9 285 boosts to 5.60 GHz, compared to 5.10 GHz for the Ultra 5 245T. The base clocks also differ, with the Ultra 9 285 at 2.50 GHz and the Ultra 5 245T at 2.20 GHz.

Architecture Differences

Both processors come from the same Arrow Lake-S family, built on the TSMC 3 nm process node. The database shows identical transistor counts at 17,800 million and identical die sizes at 243 mm², indicating the two chips share the same physical design foundation. The socket is Intel Socket 1851 for both, and both belong to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation.

The most significant architectural difference lies in core allocation. The Ultra 9 285 deploys 24 cores with 24 threads, while the Ultra 5 245T uses 14 cores with 14 threads. Neither chip uses simultaneous multithreading, so every physical core corresponds to exactly one thread. This means the Ultra 9 285 has 10 additional physical execution units available for parallel workloads.

Cache hierarchy differs in the shared L3 portion. Both processors allocate 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core. The Ultra 9 285 carries 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ultra 5 245T carries 24 MB. This 12 MB difference in the final cache level provides the larger chip with more capacity for frequently accessed data across all cores.

Clock behavior also differs. The Ultra 9 285 starts at a 2.50 GHz base clock and reaches 5.60 GHz boost. The Ultra 5 245T starts lower at 2.20 GHz and boosts to 5.10 GHz. Both share the same 65 W TDP, which means the Ultra 9 285 achieves its higher performance within the same thermal envelope, likely through more efficient binning or power management.

Integrated graphics are identical: both use Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. Memory support matches as well, with DDR5, dual-channel bus, 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, and ECC capability on both. PCIe connectivity is the same, offering Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported on either part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows the Ultra 9 285 winning all 17 benchmark comparisons. No single test favors the Ultra 5 245T. The margin varies substantially across different workload types.

Cinebench results show a consistent gap across all versions. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 9 285 scores 4933 against 2641 for the Ultra 5 245T, a 46.5% difference. The single-core R15 test shows 696 versus 372, also 46.6% apart. Cinebench R20 multicore delivers 20556 versus 11007, again 46.5%. R20 single-core shows 2901 versus 1553. Cinebench R23 multicore produces 48945 versus 26208, while R23 single-core yields 6909 versus 3699. The consistency of the 46.5% delta across all three Cinebench versions indicates the performance gap scales uniformly regardless of test revision.

PassMark tests reveal a wider spread of margins. Data compression shows the largest difference at 52.9%, with the Ultra 9 285 scoring 602121 versus 283812. Random string sorting comes close at 52.6%, with scores of 73651 and 34931. Extended instructions show a 51.3% gap, with 45357 versus 22071. Data encryption trails at 49.6%, with 46949 versus 23656.

Integer math shows a 46.2% difference, with the Ultra 9 285 at 164869 and the Ultra 5 245T at 88676. Floating point math delivers 194988 versus 108499, a 44.4% margin. The multithread test shows 56602 versus 30833, a 45.5% gap. Physics testing gives 3598 versus 2278, a 36.7% difference. Prime number finding shows the smallest multicore margin at 29.4%, with 459 versus 324.

The narrowest overall gap appears in single-thread performance. PassMark single-thread shows 4881 versus 4367, only 10.5% apart. This indicates the architectural similarity between the two chips: when only one core is active, the difference shrinks considerably. The single-core advantage likely comes from the higher 5.60 GHz boost clock of the Ultra 9 285 compared to 5.10 GHz on the Ultra 5 245T.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on exactly seven specification fields in the database.

Core count: 14 on the Ultra 5 245T, 24 on the Ultra 9 285.

Thread count: 14 on the Ultra 5 245T, 24 on the Ultra 9 285.

Base clock: 2.20 GHz on the Ultra 5 245T, 2.50 GHz on the Ultra 9 285.

Boost clock: 5.10 GHz on the Ultra 5 245T, 5.60 GHz on the Ultra 9 285.

L3 cache: 24 MB shared on the Ultra 5 245T, 36 MB shared on the Ultra 9 285.

Release date: 2025-01-06 for the Ultra 5 245T, 2024-12-31 for the Ultra 9 285.

Launch MSRP: $270 for the Ultra 5 245T, $579 for the Ultra 9 285.

All other specifications match: socket, architecture, codename, process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, L1 and L2 cache per core, memory support, memory bus, memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe configuration, integrated graphics, market segment, production status, and unlocked multiplier status.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy. The Ultra 9 285 outperforms the Ultra 5 245T in every recorded test, with margins ranging from 10.5% in single-threaded work to 52.9% in data compression. The average benchmark score of 75488 for the Ultra 9 285 nearly doubles the 38194 of the Ultra 5 245T, and the percentile ranking confirms the separation: 95th versus 86th percentile among all CPUs.

The shared architecture means the performance difference comes almost entirely from resource allocation. The Ultra 9 285 has 10 more cores, 12 MB more L3 cache, and higher clock speeds at both base and boost. The identical 65 W TDP makes the Ultra 9 285 particularly notable: it delivers roughly twice the multicore throughput within the same power envelope.

The 10.5% single-thread gap reveals that per-core efficiency is similar between the two designs. The Ultra 9 285's advantage in single-core tasks comes from its 0.50 GHz higher boost clock. In multi-threaded workloads, the core count difference dominates, producing the 45% to 53% margins seen across Cinebench and PassMark tests.

The Ultra 5 245T sits in a lower performance tier, closer to rivals like the AMD Ryzen 7 250 with a 0.1% average score difference, the Intel Core i5-14490F with a 0.1% difference, the Intel Core i5-13600HX with a 0.2% difference, and the Intel Core i5-13600KF with a 0.2% difference. The Ultra 9 285 instead competes with server-class parts, including the AMD EPYC 8224P with a 0.1% difference, the AMD EPYC 4545P with a 0.2% difference, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D with a 0.3% difference, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 with a 0.3% difference.

Where Each One Wins

The Ultra 9 285 wins every benchmark category in the database, so its advantages are straightforward to map. Multicore rendering workloads favor it heavily, with Cinebench R23 multicore showing 48945 versus 26208. Data-heavy tasks also show large advantages: compression at 602121 versus 283812, random string sorting at 73651 versus 34931, and encryption at 46949 versus 23656.

The Ultra 9 285 also leads in computational density. Integer math at 164869 versus 88676 and floating point math at 194988 versus 108499 indicate strong performance for numerical workloads. Extended instruction handling shows 45357 versus 22071, which matters for workloads using modern CPU instruction sets.

The Ultra 5 245T does not win any recorded benchmark, but its narrower losses indicate areas where it remains competitive. Single-threaded performance shows only a 10.5% deficit, the smallest margin in the entire comparison. Prime number finding also shows a relatively modest 29.4% gap, suggesting the Ultra 5 245T handles simple integer operations better than more complex multicore workloads.

For scenarios where the full core count of the Ultra 9 285 is unnecessary, the Ultra 5 245T still offers the same platform features: DDR5 memory support, ECC capability, PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, and Arc Xe-LPG integrated graphics with 64 execution units. Both processors use the same socket and architecture, so the platform-level experience remains consistent.

The 65 W TDP on both parts means the Ultra 5 245T delivers proportionally more performance per watt in single-threaded tasks, since it comes within 10.5% of the Ultra 9 285 while using the same power budget. However, in fully parallel workloads, the Ultra 9 285's additional 10 cores provide nearly double the throughput, making it the clear choice for heavily threaded applications.