Intel Core Ultra 7 265 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records 17 head-to-head comparisons between the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285. The Ultra 9 285 wins all 17, making this a one-sided comparison in raw performance terms. The smallest margin is in single-threaded PassMark tests, where the Ultra 9 285 scores 4881 against 4689 for the Ultra 7 265, a 3.9% advantage. The largest gaps appear in Cinebench R20, where the Ultra 9 285 delivers 20556 versus 6268 in multi-core, a 69.5% lead, and 2901 versus 884 in single-core, also a 69.5% lead.

In Cinebench R23, the Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 multi-core and 6909 single-core, while the Ultra 7 265 records 42216 and 5960 respectively. Both represent a 13.7% advantage for the Ultra 9 285. Cinebench R15 shows a similar pattern: 4933 versus 4255 in multi-core and 696 versus 600 in single-core, both 13.7% and 13.8% leads respectively.

PassMark integer math shows an 18.3% gap, with the Ultra 9 285 at 164869 and the Ultra 7 265 at 134773. Physics testing records a 18.8% difference, 3598 versus 2923. Floating point math gives the Ultra 9 285 a 11.4% edge, 194988 versus 172776. Data compression results show 602121 versus 522983, a 13.1% difference. Data encryption is 46949 versus 40456, a 13.8% gap.

Extended instruction testing shows a smaller 8.6% difference, 45357 versus 41478. Prime number finding records 459 versus 418, an 8.9% gap. Random string sorting delivers 73651 versus 63833, a 13.3% advantage. The multi-threaded PassMark score is 56602 versus 49682, a 12.2% difference.

The average benchmark score in the database confirms the hierarchy: the Ultra 9 285 sits at 75488, while the Ultra 7 265 reaches 64640. This places the Ultra 9 285 in the 95th percentile of all CPUs and the Ultra 7 265 in the 93rd percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins across every recorded workload category. There are no benchmark wins for the Ultra 7 265 in the database. The closest competition appears in single-threaded PassMark testing, where the 3.9% gap suggests the two processors are nearly equivalent for lightly threaded tasks. Similarly, extended instructions and prime number finding show gaps under 9%, indicating that certain instruction-heavy or latency-sensitive workloads narrow the performance difference.

For multi-threaded rendering workloads, the Cinebench R20 result is decisive. A 69.5% advantage in that test means the Ultra 9 285 delivers substantially higher throughput for heavily parallel compute. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result, with a 13.7% gap, shows a more moderate but still consistent lead. The R20 result appears anomalous relative to R15 and R23, both of which show roughly 13.7% differences, suggesting the R20 test may stress different resource allocations or memory access patterns.

The Ultra 7 265 remains a capable desktop processor in absolute terms, with a 93rd percentile standing and an average score of 64640. Its nearest rival in the database is the AMD EPYC 4464P at 64823, a 0.3% difference, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F at 64438, also a 0.3% difference. The Ultra 9 285, by contrast, rivals the AMD EPYC 8224P at 75582, a 0.1% gap, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D at 75716, a 0.3% gap.

For workloads that scale with core count, the Ultra 9 285 uses its 24 cores versus 20 for the Ultra 7 265. The multi-threaded PassMark score reflects this, with a 12.2% lead. Single-threaded performance, where core count matters less, shows the smallest gap at 3.9%, indicating that clock speed differences play a smaller role than core scaling in this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 reaches 5.30 GHz.

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

A: The largest recorded gap is in Cinebench R20, where the Ultra 9 285 leads by 69.5% in both multi-core and single-core tests.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: Yes, both support DDR5 memory with dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Ultra 9 285 has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ultra 7 265 has 30 MB.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-threaded PassMark testing?

A: The Ultra 9 285 scores 4881, which is 3.9% higher than the Ultra 7 265 at 4689.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No, the Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 7 265 does not.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several core specifications. The Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are 2.50 GHz for the Ultra 9 285 and 2.40 GHz for the Ultra 7 265. Boost clocks are 5.60 GHz and 5.30 GHz respectively. The Ultra 9 285 has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 30 MB for the Ultra 7 265.

The integrated graphics differ: the Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the Ultra 7 265 has 32 execution units. ECC memory support is present on the Ultra 9 285 but absent on the Ultra 7 265. The launch MSRP is $579 for the Ultra 9 285 and $394 for the Ultra 7 265. The Ultra 9 285 was released on 2024-12-31, while the Ultra 7 265 followed on 2025-01-06. Part numbers are SRQD4 for the Ultra 9 285 and SRQCX for the Ultra 7 265.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Arrow Lake architecture, codenamed Arrow Lake-S, and belong to the Core Ultra Series 2. They use the same 3 nm process node from TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm². Both use the Intel Socket 1851 and support PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

The L1 cache is 192 KB per core for both, and L2 cache is 3 MB per core for both. The L3 cache difference of 6 MB (36 MB versus 30 MB) is the sole cache distinction. Neither processor has a v-cache 3D option. Both have dual-channel memory buses with identical bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

The generation field labels them as Ultra 7 and Ultra 9 within the Arrow Lake family. Both are desktop market segment parts with active production status. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The integrated graphics difference, 64 EU versus 32 EU, represents a notable architectural feature gap beyond the core count difference. The ECC memory capability on the Ultra 9 285 adds a server-oriented feature absent from the Ultra 7 265.

The database records no wins for the Ultra 7 265 across any of the 17 benchmark comparisons. The Ultra 9 285 consistently outperforms it, with the smallest margin in single-threaded PassMark at 3.9% and the largest in Cinebench R20 at 69.5%. The average benchmark scores, 75488 versus 64640, place the two processors in different performance tiers despite the shared architecture and process node.