Intel Core Ultra 7 266V vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 7 266V and Intel Core Ultra 9 285 are both members of the Core Ultra Series 2, but they target entirely different segments of the market. The benchmark data shows a complete sweep for the Ultra 9 285, which wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The Ultra 7 266V is a Lunar Lake mobile processor with a 17 TDP, while the Ultra 9 285 is an Arrow Lake desktop processor with a 65 TDP. The performance gap is substantial in every measured category, with the desktop part delivering anywhere from roughly 19% to nearly 75% higher scores depending on the workload.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every single benchmark in the database, so there is no workload category where the Core Ultra 7 266V takes the lead. The closest margin comes in the PassMark single-thread tests, where the Ultra 9 scores 4881 against the Ultra 7's 3943, a 19.2% advantage. This is the only test where the gap is below 50%, indicating that the Ultra 7 266V is relatively competitive in lightly threaded tasks, though it still loses decisively.

The largest margins appear in multi-core integer and floating-point workloads. The Ultra 9 285 leads by 74.8% in PassMark integer math and by 70.8% in floating-point math. These results confirm that the desktop chip is built for sustained all-core productivity, while the mobile chip prioritizes efficiency over raw throughput. The data shows no scenario where the Ultra 7 266V's lower power envelope translates into a performance win; the Ultra 9 285 dominates across Cinebench and PassMark suites alike.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 3 nm process node and TSMC foundry, but the underlying designs diverge significantly. The Core Ultra 7 266V uses the Lunar Lake architecture and is built for the Intel BGA 2833 socket, a mobile platform. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, and fits the Intel Socket 1851 for desktop systems.

Core counts separate them sharply. The Ultra 7 266V has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. Neither part uses multi-threading, so thread counts equal core counts. Clock speeds also differ: the Ultra 7 266V runs a 2.20 GHz base with a 5.00 GHz boost, while the Ultra 9 285 runs a 2.50 GHz base with a 5.60 GHz boost. The higher boost clock on the desktop chip contributes to its single-thread advantage.

Cache hierarchies scale with core count. Both parts have 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The Ultra 7 266V has 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 285 has 3 MB of L2 cache per core and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 285 also lists 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Ultra 7 266V has no transistor or die size figures recorded.

Memory support differs by platform. The Ultra 7 266V uses LPDDR5X memory with a dual-channel bus and 136.5 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9 285 uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The mobile chip has higher peak memory bandwidth, but the desktop chip supports ECC memory, which the mobile part does not. PCIe lanes also differ: the Ultra 7 266V offers Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 9 285 offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics are present on both, but they are different implementations. The Ultra 7 266V carries Arc 140V graphics, while the Ultra 9 285 carries Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The release dates confirm the generation gap: the Ultra 7 266V launched on 2024-09-23, and the Ultra 9 285 launched on 2024-12-31. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent 66.2% deficit for the Ultra 7 266V across all tests. In Cinebench R15, the Ultra 9 285 scores 4933 in multi-core and 696 in single-core, against the Ultra 7's 1667 and 235. Cinebench R20 shows the same pattern: 20556 versus 6948 in multi-core, and 2901 versus 980 in single-core. Cinebench R23 continues with 48945 versus 16544 in multi-core, and 6909 versus 2335 in single-core. These results indicate that the Ultra 9 285 delivers roughly triple the multi-core performance of the Ultra 7 266V in rendering workloads.

PassMark tests reveal a wider spread. Integer math shows the largest gap: the Ultra 9 285 scores 164869 against the Ultra 7's 41558, a 74.8% lead. Floating-point math follows closely, with 194988 versus 56923, a 70.8% lead. Data encryption shows a 70.6% gap, with the Ultra 9 scoring 46949 against 13822. Data compression and random string sorting both show 68.9% gaps, with scores of 602121 versus 187050 and 73651 versus 22905 respectively.

The smaller gaps appear in tests that stress single-core efficiency. The Ultra 9 285 leads PassMark physics by 55.3%, scoring 3598 against 1608. Prime number finding shows a 58.4% gap, with 459 versus 191. Extended instructions show a 64.9% gap, with 45357 versus 15928. The PassMark multithread test shows a 65.6% gap, with 56602 versus 19461. The single-thread tests show the narrowest gap at 19.2%, with the Ultra 9 scoring 4881 against the Ultra 7's 3943.

Across all 17 recorded benchmarks, the Ultra 9 285 maintains a commanding lead. The average benchmark score for the Ultra 9 285 is 75488, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The Ultra 7 266V averages 23297, which lands in the 76th percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 266V has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How do the single-thread scores compare?

A: In PassMark single-thread tests, the Ultra 9 285 scores 4881 and the Ultra 7 266V scores 3943. The Ultra 9 285 leads by 19.2%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 9 scores 6909 against 2335, a 66.2% lead.

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

A: The largest gap is in PassMark integer math, where the Ultra 9 285 leads by 74.8%, scoring 164869 against 41558.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 7 266V does not.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Ultra 7 266V has 136.5 GB/s bandwidth with LPDDR5X support. The Ultra 9 285 has 102.4 GB/s bandwidth with DDR5 support.

Q: Are either of these processors overclockable?

A: No. Both the Ultra 7 266V and the Ultra 9 285 have locked multipliers.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The Ultra 7 266V has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 2.20 GHz versus 2.50 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.00 GHz versus 5.60 GHz. TDP is 17 for the mobile part and 65 for the desktop part.

Sockets differ: Intel BGA 2833 for the Ultra 7 266V, Intel Socket 1851 for the Ultra 9 285. The architecture is Lunar Lake versus Arrow Lake, with codenames Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake-S respectively. The Ultra 9 285 records 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size, while the Ultra 7 266V has no recorded values for these fields.

Cache configurations differ in L2 and L3. The Ultra 7 266V has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 12 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 285 has 3 MB of L2 per core and 36 MB of shared L3. Both share 192 KB of L1 per core.

Memory support differs: LPDDR5X for the Ultra 7 266V, DDR5 for the Ultra 9 285. Memory bandwidth is 136.5 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is false for the Ultra 7 266V and true for the Ultra 9 285. PCIe lanes are 4 for the mobile part and 20 for the desktop part.

Integrated graphics differ: Arc 140V for the Ultra 7 266V, Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU for the Ultra 9 285. Market segments are Mobile and Desktop respectively. The release dates are 2024-09-23 for the Ultra 7 266V and 2024-12-31 for the Ultra 9 285. The Ultra 9 285 has a launch MSRP of $579, while the Ultra 7 266V has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The benchmark data delivers an unambiguous verdict. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the faster processor in every recorded test, with an average benchmark score of 75488 against the Ultra 7 266V's 23297. The desktop part sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the mobile part sits in the 76th percentile. The 24-core Arrow Lake design provides massive multi-threaded throughput, and its 5.60 GHz boost clock gives it a clear single-thread edge as well.

The Core Ultra 7 266V is a Lunar Lake mobile processor with a 17 TDP, 8 cores, and a 5.00 GHz boost clock. Its performance profile is dramatically lower, but its power envelope and LPDDR5X support indicate a design focused on efficiency and portability. The data shows it loses every benchmark, but its narrowest deficit is only 19.2% in single-threaded PassMark tests, suggesting its architecture is not weak per-core, just limited by core count and thermal constraints.

For users who need maximum compute throughput, rendering performance, or data-heavy workloads, the Ultra 9 285 is the clear choice. The 66.2% Cinebench lead and 74.8% integer math lead leave no ambiguity. For users who prioritize a mobile form factor and lower power draw, the Ultra 7 266V is the only option of the two, but it does not compete on raw performance. The database records show that the Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 head-to-head benchmarks, making it the definitive performance leader in this comparison.