Intel Core Ultra 7 258V vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents an unambiguous picture: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every single benchmark in the comparison set, 17 out of 17. The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V does not claim a single victory. The margins vary considerably, though, and the pattern of those margins tells a more interesting story than the simple win count.

Starting with multi-core workloads, the Ultra 9 285 demonstrates overwhelming dominance. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 9 285 scores 4933 against the Ultra 7 258V's 1596.5, a gap of 67.6%. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 20556 versus 6739, a 67.2% deficit for the smaller chip. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result is even more lopsided: 48945 against 10301, meaning the Ultra 9 285 leads by 79%. These are not incremental differences; they reflect a fundamentally different class of compute capability.

The PassMark multi-thread test reinforces this. The Ultra 9 285 posts 56602, while the Ultra 7 258V manages 18887, a 66.6% gap. Integer math shows 164869 versus 42889, a 74% lead for the Ultra 9 285. Floating point math follows a similar trajectory: 194988 versus 57372, a 70.6% difference. Data compression scores 602121 against 176686, a 70.7% margin. Data encryption shows 46949 versus 13534, a 71.2% gap. Random string sorting records 73651 against 21580, another 70.7% difference. Extended instructions land at 45357 versus 14717, a 67.6% gap. Find prime numbers yields 459 versus 185, a 59.7% deficit for the Ultra 7 258V.

Single-core results narrow the gap but still favor the Ultra 9 285 clearly. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 696 versus 285, a 59.1% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core records 2901 against 951, a 67.2% margin. Cinebench R23 single-core posts 6909 versus 1872, a 72.9% gap. The PassMark single-thread test is the closest comparison in the entire dataset: 4881 versus 4018, a 17.7% difference. That single result hints that per-core performance, while still favoring the Ultra 9 285, is not as far apart as the multi-threaded numbers suggest.

The physics benchmark, which often reflects a mix of single-thread and multi-thread behavior, shows 3598 versus 1565, a 56.5% gap. This is the smallest margin in the multi-core-oriented tests, though still substantial.

Where Each One Wins

The Ultra 9 285 wins across all measured categories, so a "where each one wins" analysis must focus on the relative magnitude of those wins and what the benchmark structure implies about workload suitability.

The strongest Ultra 9 285 advantages appear in heavily parallel workloads. Cinebench R23 multi-core, with its 79% lead, represents sustained all-core rendering. The integer math test at 74% and floating point math at 70.6% point to scientific and engineering computation. Data compression at 70.7% and random string sorting at 70.7% indicate file archiving and data manipulation tasks scale strongly with the larger core count. Data encryption at 71.2% suggests cryptography and secure communication workloads also benefit disproportionately.

The Ultra 7 258V's relative position is best in single-threaded tests. The PassMark single-thread gap of 17.7% is far smaller than any multi-core gap. This means for lightly threaded applications, such as basic productivity, web browsing, or legacy software that cannot use many cores, the Ultra 7 258V is less disadvantaged. The physics benchmark gap of 56.5% is the smallest among the multi-core suite, which may reflect a workload that does not scale perfectly with 24 cores.

The Ultra 7 258V also has architectural traits that matter outside raw benchmark scores. Its TDP is 17 watts versus 65 watts for the Ultra 9 285. While the database does not record power draw under load, the TDP figures indicate the Ultra 7 258V is designed for a much lower power envelope. Its memory bandwidth is higher at 136.5 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, which could help in memory-latency-sensitive tasks despite the lower compute throughput. The Ultra 7 258V uses LPDDR5X memory, which is typically integrated or soldered in mobile designs, while the Ultra 9 285 uses DDR5. The Ultra 7 258V is a mobile chip on Intel BGA 2833 socket; the Ultra 9 285 is a desktop chip on Intel Socket 1851.

The Ultra 9 285 has ECC memory support, which the Ultra 7 258V lacks. That makes the larger chip more appropriate for data integrity-sensitive server or workstation scenarios. The Ultra 9 285 also has 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) versus 4 lanes for the Ultra 7 258V, which changes expansion capability substantially.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the superior processor in every measured performance category. Anyone choosing between these two for compute-heavy workloads should select the Ultra 9 285 without hesitation, as the 17-0 record and the margins involved leave no ambiguity. The 79% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and the 74% lead in integer math are decisive.

The Ultra 7 258V remains relevant in a different context. Its 17-watt TDP, mobile socket, and higher memory bandwidth make it suitable for portable systems where power efficiency and thermal constraints dominate. The database shows its average benchmark score is 20454, placing it in the 74th percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 5 5600 at 20468 (0.1% behind), the AMD Ryzen 5 8500G at 20425 (0.1% ahead), the AMD EPYC 9454P at 20422 (0.2% ahead), and the AMD EPYC 7713 at 20363 (0.4% ahead). The Ultra 9 285 sits in the 95th percentile with an average score of 75488, with nearest rivals including the AMD EPYC 8224P at 75582 (0.1% behind), the AMD EPYC 4545P at 75373 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D at 75716 (0.3% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 at 75738 (0.3% behind).

The launch MSRP for the Ultra 9 285 is $579. The database does not list a launch MSRP for the Ultra 7 258V.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V has 8 cores and 8 threads.

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

A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Ultra 9 285 leads by 79% with a score of 48945 versus 10301.

Q: What is the smallest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The smallest margin is in the PassMark single-thread test, where the Ultra 9 285 leads by 17.7% with a score of 4881 versus 4018.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V does not.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V has higher memory bandwidth at 136.5 GB/s, compared to 102.4 GB/s for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285.

Q: What sockets do these processors use?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V uses Intel BGA 2833. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from the same Core Ultra Series 2 family but use different architectures. The Ultra 7 258V uses Lunar Lake, with the codename Lunar Lake. The Ultra 9 285 uses Arrow Lake, with the codename Arrow Lake-S. Both are built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC, but the similarity ends there.

The Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores versus 8 cores for the Ultra 7 258V. Both have 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache differs: the Ultra 7 258V has 2.5 MB per core, while the Ultra 9 285 has 3 MB per core. The L3 cache is a major differentiator: the Ultra 7 258V has 12 MB shared, while the Ultra 9 285 has 36 MB shared. This larger cache contributes to the Ultra 9 285's strong multi-threaded and single-threaded performance.

The transistor count and die size are recorded only for the Ultra 9 285: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The database does not list these figures for the Ultra 7 258V. The Ultra 9 285 also has a higher base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost clock of 5.60 GHz, versus 2.20 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost for the Ultra 7 258V.

The integrated graphics differ. The Ultra 7 258V uses Arc 140V. The Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Both are integrated solutions, but the database does not provide benchmark comparisons for graphics performance, so no conclusion can be drawn about which is faster in that domain.

The Ultra 7 258V supports LPDDR5X memory, while the Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5. Both are dual-channel. The Ultra 7 258V's memory bandwidth is 136.5 GB/s, higher than the Ultra 9 285's 102.4 GB/s. The Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory; the Ultra 7 258V does not.

PCIe connectivity differs substantially. The Ultra 7 258V provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 9 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). This means the desktop chip can support more high-speed expansion devices directly from the CPU.

The market segments differ: the Ultra 7 258V is mobile, the Ultra 9 285 is desktop. The Ultra 7 258V uses a BGA socket (soldered), while the Ultra 9 285 uses an LGA-style socket (Intel Socket 1851) that allows for replacement or upgrade. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported according to the recorded data.

Specification Differences

The base clock differs: 2.20 GHz for the Ultra 7 258V versus 2.50 GHz for the Ultra 9 285. The boost clock differs: 4.80 GHz versus 5.60 GHz. The TDP differs significantly: 17 watts versus 65 watts.

Core and thread counts differ: 8 cores and 8 threads versus 24 cores and 24 threads. The Ultra 7 258V has no hyperthreading-style thread doubling, and neither does the Ultra 9 285; both match cores to threads.

Cache hierarchy differs. L1 is the same at 192 KB per core. L2 is 2.5 MB per core for the Ultra 7 258V and 3 MB per core for the Ultra 9 285. L3 is 12 MB shared versus 36 MB shared.

Memory support differs: LPDDR5X for the Ultra 7 258V, DDR5 for the Ultra 9 285. Memory bandwidth is 136.5 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC support is absent on the Ultra 7 258V and present on the Ultra 9 285.

PCIe lanes differ: 4 lanes (Gen 5) for the Ultra 7 258V, 20 lanes (Gen 5) for the Ultra 9 285. Integrated graphics differ: Arc 140V versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Sockets differ: Intel BGA 2833 versus Intel Socket 1851. Market segment differs: Mobile versus Desktop.

The release dates differ. The Ultra 7 258V was released on 2024-09-23. The Ultra 9 285 was released on 2024-12-31. Both are listed as Active in production status. The part numbers differ: SRPMNSRPMT for the Ultra 7 258V, SRQD4 for the Ultra 9 285. The launch MSRP for the Ultra 9 285 is $579; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra 7 258V. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The process node is the same (3 nm) and the foundry is the same (TSMC). The transistor count and die size are recorded only for the Ultra 9 285: 17,800 million transistors, 243 mm². The database does not provide these for the Ultra 7 258V. The generation naming differs: the Ultra 7 258V is listed as "Ultra 7 (Lunar Lake)", the Ultra 9 285 as "Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake)". Both belong to the Core Ultra Series 2 from Intel.