Intel Core Ultra 7 155UL vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Intel Core Ultra 7 155UL and Intel Core Ultra 9 285 are both desktop processors on the Intel Socket 1851 platform, but they occupy opposite ends of the Core Ultra spectrum. The data shows a decisive performance gap, with the Ultra 9 285 delivering more than double the multi-threaded throughput of the Ultra 7 155UL. The Ultra 7 155UL is a 12-core, 14-thread Meteor Lake-PS part with a 15 W TDP, while the Ultra 9 285 is a 24-core, 24-thread Arrow Lake-S part with a 65 W TDP. Benchmark results indicate the Ultra 9 285 is the clear choice for compute-intensive workloads, while the Ultra 7 155UL offers a low-power foundation for basic desktop tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The performance split between these two processors is stark. The Ultra 9 285 wins every recorded benchmark category, leaving the Ultra 7 155UL without a single head-to-head victory in the database. The Ultra 7 155UL has no recorded benchmark scores, meaning its performance profile is entirely unmeasured in this dataset, while the Ultra 9 285 has a comprehensive set of 17 benchmark scores. This absence of data for the Ultra 7 155UL is itself a finding: it indicates the database has not tracked any performance results for this part, likely due to its low-power positioning.

The Ultra 9 285 excels in multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads alike. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 48945 places it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, a strong showing for a desktop processor. The single-core Cinebench R23 result of 6909 confirms that the architecture delivers high per-thread performance as well. PassMark integer math at 164869 and floating point math at 194988 show balanced execution across different instruction types, while data compression at 602121 and data encryption at 46949 indicate robust throughput for data-centric tasks. The Ultra 9 285 also records a multithread score of 56602 and a single-thread score of 4881 in PassMark, reinforcing its dual strength in both parallel and sequential workloads.

The Ultra 7 155UL, with no benchmark data, cannot be positioned as a winner in any category measured here. Its 12 cores and 14 threads, paired with a 15 W TDP, suggest a design intended for efficiency rather than peak performance. Without recorded scores, the database offers no evidence of competitive wins for this part.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and architectures. The Ultra 7 155UL uses Meteor Lake architecture with the Meteor Lake-PS codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 1. The Ultra 9 285 uses Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2. This generational split explains the substantial differences in core counts, cache, and fabrication.

The Ultra 7 155UL is built on a 7 nm process node at Intel's foundry. The Ultra 9 285 is built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC, and it contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The process node difference is significant: the Ultra 9 285 uses a smaller, more advanced fabrication process, which allows for a higher transistor count and better power efficiency per transistor.

Core config, the Ultra 7 155UL has 12 cores and 14 threads, while the Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The thread count parity with core count on the Ultra 9 285 indicates it uses a design without hyper-threading on its efficiency cores, whereas the Ultra 7 155UL's 14 threads from 12 cores suggests a mix of performance and efficiency cores with hyper-threading on some of them. Cache hierarchies also differ: the Ultra 7 155UL has 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9 285's L3 cache is three times larger, a major advantage for workloads with large working sets.

Memory support differs as well. The Ultra 7 155UL supports DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s. Both use a dual-channel memory bus. The Ultra 9 285 adds ECC memory support, which the Ultra 7 155UL lacks. PCIe capabilities are also different: the Ultra 7 155UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 9 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). This gives the Ultra 9 285 both a newer PCIe generation and more than double the lane count for expansion.

Integrated graphics are similar in branding but differ in capabilities. The Ultra 7 155UL uses Arc Xe-LPG 64EU, while the Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Both have 64 execution units, indicating comparable integrated graphics performance, though the Ultra 9 285's newer architecture may yield different results in practice.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons are impossible because the Ultra 7 155UL has no recorded scores. The database contains zero benchmark entries for the Ultra 7 155UL, while the Ultra 9 285 has a full suite of results. Therefore, every measurable comparison must rely on the Ultra 9 285's absolute scores rather than a side-by-side delta.

The Ultra 9 285's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 48945 is the standout result in its benchmark suite. This score places it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, a high ranking that confirms its position among the fastest desktop processors. The Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 20556 and the Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 4933 follow the same trend, showing consistent multi-threaded strength across different Cinebench versions. The single-core scores are similarly strong, with Cinebench R23 single-core at 6909, R20 single-core at 2901, and R15 single-core at 696.

PassMark results for the Ultra 9 285 show a wide range of workload-specific performance. Data compression scores 602121, floating point math scores 194988, and integer math scores 164869. Extended instructions score 45357, data encryption scores 46949, and random string sorting scores 73651. The find prime numbers test scores 459, and physics scores 3598. The multithread score of 56602 and single-thread score of 4881 complete the PassMark profile.

Relative to its nearest rivals in the database, the Ultra 9 285 is tightly clustered. Its average benchmark score of 75488 is 0.1% below the AMD EPYC 8224P (75582), 0.2% above the AMD EPYC 4545P (75373), 0.3% below the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D (75716), and 0.3% below the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 (75738). These deltas are minimal, indicating that the Ultra 9 285 performs within a narrow band of these competing server and workstation processors in average benchmark scores. The 95th percentile ranking versus all CPUs reinforces that this is a top-tier part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra 7 155UL has 12 cores and 14 threads.

Q: What is the difference in boost clock speeds?

A: The Ultra 9 285 boosts to 5.60 GHz, while the Ultra 7 155UL boosts to 4.80 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, but the Ultra 7 155UL does not.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The Ultra 9 285 has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ultra 7 155UL has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What PCIe generations do they use?

A: The Ultra 9 285 uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 7 155UL uses PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only).

Q: Are there any benchmark scores for the Ultra 7 155UL?

A: The database contains no benchmark scores for the Ultra 7 155UL, whereas the Ultra 9 285 has 17 recorded benchmark scores.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the two processors are as follows:

• Cores: 12 (Ultra 7 155UL) vs 24 (Ultra 9 285)
• Threads: 14 (Ultra 7 155UL) vs 24 (Ultra 9 285)
• Base Clock: 1.70 GHz (Ultra 7 155UL) vs 2.50 GHz (Ultra 9 285)
• Boost Clock: 4.80 GHz (Ultra 7 155UL) vs 5.60 GHz (Ultra 9 285)
• TDP: 15 W (Ultra 7 155UL) vs 65 W (Ultra 9 285)
• Architecture: Meteor Lake (Ultra 7 155UL) vs Arrow Lake (Ultra 9 285)
• Process Node: 7 nm (Ultra 7 155UL) vs 3 nm (Ultra 9 285)
• Foundry: Intel (Ultra 7 155UL) vs TSMC (Ultra 9 285)
• Transistors: Not listed (Ultra 7 155UL) vs 17,800 million (Ultra 9 285)
• Die Size: Not listed (Ultra 7 155UL) vs 243 mm² (Ultra 9 285)
• L1 Cache: 112 KB per core (Ultra 7 155UL) vs 192 KB per core (Ultra 9 285)
• L2 Cache: 2 MB per core (Ultra 7 155UL) vs 3 MB per core (Ultra 9 285)
• L3 Cache: 12 MB shared (Ultra 7 155UL) vs 36 MB shared (Ultra 9 285)
• Memory Bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s (Ultra 7 155UL) vs 102.4 GB/s (Ultra 9 285)
• ECC Memory: No (Ultra 7 155UL) vs Yes (Ultra 9 285)
• PCIe: Gen 4, 8 Lanes (Ultra 7 155UL) vs Gen 5, 20 Lanes (Ultra 9 285)
• Release Date: 2024-04-07 (Ultra 7 155UL) vs 2024-12-31 (Ultra 9 285)
• Launch MSRP: $426 (Ultra 7 155UL) vs $579 (Ultra 9 285)

The Verdict

The data points to the Ultra 9 285 as the superior processor in every measured dimension. Its 24 cores, 24 threads, 5.60 GHz boost clock, 36 MB L3 cache, and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth give it a comprehensive advantage over the Ultra 7 155UL. The 95th percentile ranking among all CPUs, supported by an average benchmark score of 75488, confirms that it sits near the top of the performance hierarchy. The Ultra 7 155UL, by contrast, has no benchmark scores in the database, so its performance cannot be quantified here.

The Ultra 9 285 is the appropriate choice for users who need maximum multi-threaded performance, large cache capacity, ECC memory support, and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity. Its launch MSRP of $579 reflects a high-end positioning, and its 65 W TDP allows for substantial core counts without extreme power draw. The Ultra 7 155UL, with a launch MSRP of $426, a 15 W TDP, and a 7 nm process node, serves a different purpose: it is a low-power desktop part suitable for efficiency-focused builds where raw performance is not the priority. The 12-core, 14-thread configuration and 12 MB L3 cache are modest, and the lack of ECC support and PCIe Gen 4 with only 8 lanes limits its expansion and reliability features.

For compute-bound tasks such as rendering, data compression, or heavy multi-threaded applications, the Ultra 9 285 is the only viable option based on recorded data. For basic desktop use where power consumption is the primary concern, the Ultra 7 155UL offers a lower-power alternative, but its performance envelope remains unverified in the database. The verdict is clear: the Ultra 9 285 dominates in performance, while the Ultra 7 155UL trades that performance for a much lower TDP.