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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a dominant performance profile for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, which wins 16 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons recorded. The largest margin appears in PassMark extended instructions, where the Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 42,880 against 27,477 for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T, a 56.1% advantage. This indicates a substantial lead in workloads that utilize advanced CPU instruction set extensions.

PassMark data compression follows closely, with the Ultra 5 250KF Plus scoring 553,155 versus 384,140, a 44% delta. Random string sorting also favors the Ultra 5 250KF Plus by 40.9%, with scores of 67,209 and 47,695 respectively. These results suggest that the Ultra 5 250KF Plus handles memory-intensive and data-manipulation tasks with considerably more efficiency.

The Cinebench suite shows consistent 27.2% to 27.3% advantages for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus across all six tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 42,718 while the Ultra 9 285T scores 33,573. Single-core performance tells the same story: the Ultra 5 250KF Plus reaches 6,030 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 4,739 for the Ultra 9 285T. The R15, R20, and R23 results all cluster around the same 27% margin, indicating a consistent architectural or clock-driven advantage rather than workload-specific scaling.

PassMark data encryption shows a 28.8% lead for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus (41,292 vs 32,061), and find prime numbers shows a 31% lead (452 vs 345). Multi-threaded performance in PassMark favors the Ultra 5 250KF Plus by 25.6%, with scores of 50,146 and 39,931. The physics test shows a more modest 12% advantage (3,183 vs 2,842), and floating point math shows a 15.9% lead (159,824 vs 137,923).

The single-thread results are the closest comparison. PassMark single-thread scores show the Ultra 5 250KF Plus at 4,698 versus 4,576 for the Ultra 9 285T, a narrow 2.7% gap. This is the smallest delta in the entire dataset, suggesting that per-core execution is broadly similar and the larger multi-core and workload-specific gaps stem from other factors.

The only benchmark where the Ultra 9 285T wins is PassMark integer math. There, the Ultra 9 285T scores 132,433 against 123,030 for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus, a 7.1% advantage. This is an isolated result within an otherwise sweeping defeat, and it indicates that the Ultra 9 285T has some strength in integer-heavy instruction streams despite trailing across every other recorded metric.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental design lineage, coming from the Core Ultra Series 2 and built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. Both use the Intel Socket 1851 and carry the same transistor count of 17,800 million with a die size of 243 mm². The L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core, and the L2 cache is also identical at 3 MB per core.

The core configuration is where the two diverge significantly. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses 18 cores and 18 threads, meaning no hyper-threading-style logical core duplication. The Ultra 9 285T uses 24 cores and 24 threads, also without logical core doubling. The extra 6 physical cores in the Ultra 9 285T do not translate into benchmark victories, which suggests that clock speeds and power delivery play a larger role in the recorded performance outcomes.

The L3 cache differs as well. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 30 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ultra 9 285T has 36 MB. The larger cache on the Ultra 9 285T does not help it win any of the cache-sensitive benchmarks such as data compression or random string sorting, both of which favor the Ultra 5 250KF Plus by wide margins.

Clock speeds are a major differentiator. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The Ultra 9 285T has a base clock of 1.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The base clock difference is substantial, with the Ultra 5 250KF Plus running 2.80 GHz higher at idle or lightly threaded conditions. The boost clocks are nearly identical, differing by only 0.10 GHz, which explains why single-thread scores are so close.

The thermal design power ratings are starkly different. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a TDP of 125 W, while the Ultra 9 285T has a TDP of 35 W. This is a 90 W difference and likely explains why the Ultra 9 285T, despite having more cores and a slightly higher boost clock, falls behind in sustained multi-core workloads. The lower power envelope constrains how long the 24 cores can maintain high frequencies.

The codenames differ: the Ultra 5 250KF Plus is part of the Arrow Lake Refresh family, while the Ultra 9 285T uses the Arrow Lake-S codename with an explicit Arrow Lake architecture designation. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no architecture field recorded. Both are desktop parts with active production status.

Memory support is DDR5 for both, with dual-channel buses. The memory bandwidth differs: the Ultra 5 250KF Plus records 115.2 GB/s, while the Ultra 9 285T records 102.4 GB/s. Both support ECC memory and use PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

The integrated graphics situation is a clear split. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A. The Ultra 9 285T includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. This makes the Ultra 9 285T a more self-contained package for systems without a discrete GPU.

The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the Ultra 9 285T does not. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus also has a different part number (SA4V3) compared to the Ultra 9 285T (SRQD3). The release dates differ: the Ultra 5 250KF Plus launched on 2026-03-10, while the Ultra 9 285T launched earlier on 2025-01-06.

Where Each One Wins

The data clearly establishes the Ultra 5 250KF Plus as the stronger performer in nearly every recorded workload category. It wins all Cinebench tests, both multi-core and single-core, with margins around 27%. This means rendering workloads, 3D scene creation, and any CPU-bound creative application that relies on Cinebench-style threading will favor the Ultra 5 250KF Plus.

The PassMark suite shows the Ultra 5 250KF Plus winning in data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, find prime numbers, floating point math, multi-threaded tests, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. The compression and sorting wins by 44% and 40.9% respectively suggest strong memory subsystem performance and efficient data movement. The extended instructions win by 56.1% indicates a major advantage in specialized instruction workloads such as SIMD-heavy code.

The Ultra 9 285T has exactly one benchmark win: PassMark integer math, where it leads by 7.1%. This suggests that in workloads dominated by integer arithmetic, such as certain database operations, financial calculations, or compression algorithms that operate primarily on integer data, the Ultra 9 285T can pull ahead. However, this is a narrow niche within the broader benchmark set.

For users who prioritize raw multi-core throughput, the Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the clear choice based on the data. Its 27.2% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core (42,718 vs 33,573) and 25.6% lead in PassMark multi-thread (50,146 vs 39,931) demonstrate a substantial performance advantage in heavily threaded workloads.

For single-thread responsiveness, the gap narrows significantly. The 2.7% lead in PassMark single-thread (4,698 vs 4,576) means the two processors are nearly equivalent for lightly threaded tasks like general desktop use, web browsing, or legacy single-core applications. The Cinebench single-core tests show a larger 27.3% gap in favor of the Ultra 5 250KF Plus, so the interpretation depends on the specific workload.

The Ultra 9 285T does offer integrated graphics with Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, which the Ultra 5 250KF Plus lacks entirely. This makes the Ultra 9 285T viable for systems that require a display output without a discrete GPU, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded in the dataset.

The lower TDP of 35 W for the Ultra 9 285T makes it a more power-efficient part on paper. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus consumes 125 W at the TDP level. The data does not include power consumption measurements, but the TDP figures are recorded.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key fields. Core count: the Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores, the Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores. Thread count mirrors this: 18 threads versus 24 threads. Base clock: 4.20 GHz versus 1.40 GHz. Boost clock: 5.30 GHz versus 5.40 GHz. TDP: 125 W versus 35 W.

L3 cache: 30 MB shared on the Ultra 5 250KF Plus versus 36 MB shared on the Ultra 9 285T. Memory bandwidth: 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. Integrated graphics: N/A versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Multiplier: unlocked versus locked. Codename: Arrow Lake Refresh versus Arrow Lake-S. Architecture: null versus Arrow Lake. Release date: 2026-03-10 versus 2025-01-06. Part number: SA4V3 versus SRQD3.

The commonalities are also notable. Both use the same 3 nm TSMC process, 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, Intel Socket 1851, and the Desktop market segment.

The average benchmark scores reflect the overall performance gap. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an average benchmark score of 66,159, while the Ultra 9 285T has 51,310. In percentile rankings against all CPUs, the Ultra 5 250KF Plus sits at the 93rd percentile, while the Ultra 9 285T sits at the 91st percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The only win for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T is PassMark integer math.

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

A: The largest delta is in PassMark extended instructions, where the Ultra 5 250KF Plus leads by 56.1%, scoring 42,880 versus 27,477 for the Ultra 9 285T.

Q: How close is single-thread performance?

A: The PassMark single-thread test shows a 2.7% advantage for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus (4,698 vs 4,576). The Cinebench single-core tests show a larger gap of 27.3% in favor of the Ultra 5 250KF Plus.

Q: Does the Ultra 9 285T have more cores?

A: Yes, the Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. Despite the core advantage, the Ultra 9 285T trails in most benchmarks.

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a TDP of 125 W, while the Ultra 9 285T has a TDP of 35 W. This 90 W difference may explain the Ultra 5 250KF Plus's sustained performance advantage.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Ultra 9 285T includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics.

Q: How do the average scores compare?

A: The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an average benchmark score of 66,159, which is higher than the Ultra 9 285T's 51,310. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus ranks at the 93rd percentile, and the Ultra 9 285T ranks at the 91st percentile.