Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285T Comparison

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and Intel Core Ultra 9 285T are both part of the Core Ultra Series 2, yet the benchmark data shows two very different performance profiles. The Ultra 5 250K Plus wins 13 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Ultra 9 285T takes 4. The average benchmark score for the Ultra 5 250K Plus is 66855, compared to 51310 for the Ultra 9 285T. The Ultra 5 250K Plus sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 9 285T sits at the 91st percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single victory for the Ultra 5 250K Plus comes in PassMark extended instructions, where it scores 44565 against 27477 for the Ultra 9 285T, a 62.2% advantage. Data compression shows a similar pattern: 568721 versus 384140, a 48.1% delta. Random string sorting goes to the Ultra 5 250K Plus by 44.9% (69090 versus 47695). Prime number finding favors the Ultra 5 250K Plus by 40.9% (486 versus 345). Cinebench R15 multicore delivers a 37.1% lead for the Ultra 5 250K Plus (4640 versus 3384). Data encryption adds a 31.4% win (42144 versus 32061). Cinebench R20 multicore and singlecore both show the Ultra 5 250K Plus ahead by 30.8% (18442 versus 14100, and 2603 versus 1990). PassMark multithread results give the Ultra 5 250K Plus a 29.2% edge (51596 versus 39931). Physics testing favors the Ultra 5 250K Plus by 22.9% (3494 versus 2842). Floating point math goes to the Ultra 5 250K Plus with an 18% delta (162692 versus 137923). PassMark single-thread shows a narrow 4% win for the Ultra 5 250K Plus (4757 versus 4576).

The Ultra 9 285T counters in four tests. Cinebench R23 singlecore is its largest win: 4739 versus 2261, a 52.3% lead for the Ultra 9 285T. Cinebench R15 singlecore goes to the Ultra 9 285T by 31.2% (477 versus 328). Cinebench R23 multicore favors the Ultra 9 285T by 8.1% (33573 versus 30867). PassMark integer math shows a 5.5% advantage for the Ultra 9 285T (132433 versus 125091).

The pattern is clear. In most multi-threaded and data-heavy workloads, the Ultra 5 250K Plus dominates, often by wide margins. The Ultra 9 285T takes a decisive lead in Cinebench R23 singlecore and R15 singlecore, plus a smaller win in integer math. The Cinebench R23 multicore result is the only full multi-core test where the Ultra 9 285T leads, and that lead is modest at 8.1%. In all other multi-threaded tests, the Ultra 5 250K Plus leads by double digits.

Architecture Differences

Both processors use a 3 nm process node from TSMC and share the same transistor count of 17,800 million and die size of 243 mm². The core counts differ significantly. The Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores and 24 threads. Neither supports simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts match core counts. The Ultra 5 250K Plus is built on the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, while the Ultra 9 285T uses the Arrow Lake-S codename and the Arrow Lake architecture. The Ultra 5 250K Plus lists its generation as Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake), while the Ultra 9 285T lists Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake).

Cache allocations differ as well. Both share 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core. The shared L3 cache is 30 MB on the Ultra 5 250K Plus versus 36 MB on the Ultra 9 285T. Clock speeds show a wide split. The Ultra 5 250K Plus runs a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The Ultra 9 285T has a 1.40 GHz base clock and a 5.40 GHz boost clock. The TDP difference is substantial: 125 watts for the Ultra 5 250K Plus versus 35 watts for the Ultra 9 285T.

Memory bandwidth also differs. The Ultra 5 250K Plus records 115.2 GB/s, while the Ultra 9 285T records 102.4 GB/s. Both support DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode and both support ECC memory. PCIe configuration is identical: Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics are the same on both: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Ultra 5 250K Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the Ultra 9 285T is locked. Release dates differ: the Ultra 9 285T launched on 2025-01-06, while the Ultra 5 250K Plus launched on 2026-03-10.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Ultra 9 285T scores 33573, which is 8.1% higher than the Ultra 5 250K Plus score of 30867. This is the only Cinebench multicore test where the Ultra 9 285T leads, as the Ultra 5 250K Plus wins Cinebench R15 multicore by 37.1% and Cinebench R20 multicore by 30.8%.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Ultra 5 250K Plus has a TDP of 125 watts, while the Ultra 9 285T has a TDP of 35 watts. The Ultra 9 285T uses substantially less power.

Q: Do both processors use the same process node?

A: Yes, both use a 3 nm process node from TSMC. They also share the same transistor count of 17,800 million and the same die size of 243 mm².

Q: Which processor has higher single-thread performance?

A: The Ultra 9 285T leads in Cinebench R23 singlecore with 4739 against 2261, a 52.3% advantage. It also leads Cinebench R15 singlecore with 477 against 328, a 31.2% advantage. However, the Ultra 5 250K Plus wins PassMark single-thread by 4% (4757 versus 4576).

Q: Which processor has the higher launch MSRP?

A: The Ultra 9 285T has a launch MSRP of $549. The Ultra 5 250K Plus has a launch MSRP of $199.

The Verdict

The benchmark data separates these two processors by workload type. The Ultra 5 250K Plus is the stronger choice for data compression, encryption, extended instruction workloads, prime number finding, floating point math, physics, random string sorting, and multithreaded PassMark tests. It holds a 62.2% lead in extended instructions and a 48.1% lead in data compression. Its 18-core configuration, paired with a 125 watt TDP and a 4.20 GHz base clock, delivers consistently higher throughput in these areas.

The Ultra 9 285T is the choice for Cinebench R23 singlecore and R15 singlecore, where it leads by 52.3% and 31.2% respectively. It also wins Cinebench R23 multicore by 8.1% and PassMark integer math by 5.5%. Its 24-core design and 5.40 GHz boost clock contribute to these results, but the 35 watt TDP and 1.40 GHz base clock limit its performance in most other recorded tests.

The average benchmark scores reflect the overall balance: 66855 for the Ultra 5 250K Plus against 51310 for the Ultra 9 285T. The nearest rivals in the database reinforce the positioning. The Ultra 5 250K Plus sits within 0.9% of the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX and 0.1% of the AMD EPYC 4465P. The Ultra 9 285T trades within 1.2% of the AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT and 0.6% of the Intel Core i9-14900T. The Ultra 5 250K Plus is also 1.1% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, its closest sibling in the database.

For users prioritizing raw throughput in data and math workloads, the data points to the Ultra 5 250K Plus. For users prioritizing Cinebench single-core performance and lower power draw, the data points to the Ultra 9 285T. The Ultra 5 250K Plus also offers an unlocked multiplier, while the Ultra 9 285T does not. Both use the Intel Socket 1851, support DDR5, ECC memory, and PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus | Intel Core Ultra 9 285T |

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

| Cores | 18 | 24 |

| Threads | 18 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 4.20 GHz | 1.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.30 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 35 W |

| Codename | Arrow Lake Refresh | Arrow Lake-S |

| Architecture | Not specified | Arrow Lake |

| Generation | Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) | Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake) |

| L3 Cache | 30 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Release Date | 2026-03-10 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | $199 | $549 |

| Part Number | SA4UZ | SRQD3 |

Shared specifications include the 3 nm TSMC process node, 17,800 million transistors, 243 mm² die size, 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, DDR5 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, Intel Socket 1851, and the Active production status.