Intel Core Ultra 7 268V vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall benchmark standing?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 268V sits in the 74th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 sits in the 95th percentile. The average benchmark score for the Ultra 7 268V is 20897, compared to 75488 for the Ultra 9 285.

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 268V has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What are the clock speed differences between the two?

A: The Ultra 7 268V has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Ultra 9 285 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz.

Q: How do the cache configurations differ?

A: The Ultra 7 268V 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. Both have 192 KB of L1 cache per core.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 268V does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the Ultra 9 285?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Ultra 7 268V has no recorded memory bandwidth figure in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The Ultra 7 268V does not win a single comparison. The margins, however, vary significantly by workload type, which reveals where each chip has relative strengths.

In single-threaded work, the Ultra 9 285 leads by the narrowest margin on the record. The PassMark single-thread test shows the Ultra 9 285 scoring 4881 against 4051 for the Ultra 7 268V, a delta of 17 percent. That is the smallest gap between the two parts in any test, indicating that the Ultra 7 268V's single-core performance is comparatively close to the larger desktop chip, even though the Ultra 9 285 still wins.

The largest gap appears in heavily threaded rendering workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 against 10653 for the Ultra 7 268V, a delta of 78.2 percent. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: 20556 for the Ultra 9 285 versus 6887 for the Ultra 7 268V, a delta of 66.5 percent. These results reflect the core count disparity, with 24 cores versus 8 cores.

Integer math performance also shows a wide separation. The Ultra 9 285 scores 164869 in PassMark integer math, while the Ultra 7 268V scores 42669, a delta of 74.1 percent. Floating-point math follows with 194988 versus 57628, a delta of 70.4 percent. Data compression shows a delta of 69.9 percent, with the Ultra 9 285 scoring 602121 versus 181443.

The physics test shows the smallest multi-core gap. The Ultra 9 285 scores 3598 against 1617 for the Ultra 7 268V, a delta of 55.1 percent. That still represents a substantial lead, but it is the closest multi-threaded result in the dataset.

The Ultra 7 268V, despite losing every comparison, shows its closest overall performance in single-threaded tasks. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4051 trails the Ultra 9 285 by only 17 percent. This suggests that the Lunar Lake architecture delivers competitive per-core performance, but the Arrow Lake-S desktop part extends its advantage through higher boost clocks and more cores.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to the same Core Ultra Series 2 family but use different architectures. The Intel Core Ultra 7 268V uses Lunar Lake architecture, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arrow Lake architecture. Both are fabricated on a 3 nm process node at TSMC.

The Ultra 7 268V is designed for mobile devices, as indicated by its market segment and its Intel BGA 2833 socket. The Ultra 9 285 targets desktop systems with an Intel Socket 1851. The Ultra 9 285 has a larger physical implementation, with 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm². The Ultra 7 268V has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database.

Cache architecture differs in capacity. The Ultra 7 268V provides 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 285 provides 3 MB of L2 cache per core and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Both share the same 192 KB per-core L1 cache design.

The integrated graphics solutions differ as well. The Ultra 7 268V uses Arc 140V graphics, while the Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The release dates are separated by several months: the Ultra 7 268V appeared on 2024-09-23, and the Ultra 9 285 on 2024-12-31.

PCIe connectivity differs substantially. The Ultra 7 268V supports Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 9 285 supports Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Memory support also differs: the Ultra 7 268V's support depends on the motherboard, while the Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a recorded bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

ECC memory support marks another architectural distinction. The Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 7 268V does not. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious specification gap. The Ultra 7 268V has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The base clock differs by 0.30 GHz, with the Ultra 9 285 running at 2.50 GHz versus 2.20 GHz for the Ultra 7 268V. The boost clock differs by 0.60 GHz, with the Ultra 9 285 reaching 5.60 GHz versus 5.00 GHz.

Thermal design power shows a significant separation. The Ultra 7 268V has a TDP of 17 watts, while the Ultra 9 285 has a TDP of 65 watts. This reflects the mobile versus desktop positioning of the two parts.

The sockets are different: Intel BGA 2833 for the Ultra 7 268V and Intel Socket 1851 for the Ultra 9 285. L2 cache per core is 2.5 MB for the Ultra 7 268V and 3 MB for the Ultra 9 285. Shared L3 cache is 12 MB for the Ultra 7 268V and 36 MB for the Ultra 9 285.

The Ultra 9 285 has a recorded transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the Ultra 7 268V has no recorded values for either. The Ultra 9 285 also has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the Ultra 7 268V has no recorded memory bandwidth. The Ultra 7 268V's memory support is listed as dependent on the motherboard, while the Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5.

ECC memory support is exclusive to the Ultra 9 285. The integrated graphics differ, with Arc 140V on the Ultra 7 268V and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU on the Ultra 9 285. PCIe lane counts differ, with 4 Gen 5 lanes on the Ultra 7 268V and 20 Gen 5 lanes on the Ultra 9 285. The part numbers differ as well: SRPMLSRPMX for the Ultra 7 268V and SRQD4 for the Ultra 9 285. The launch MSRP for the Ultra 9 285 is $579, while the Ultra 7 268V has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers 17 benchmark tests, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17. The most decisive victory comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 against 10653 for the Ultra 7 268V. That is a delta of 78.2 percent, the largest margin in the entire dataset.

Cinebench R15 multi-core shows the Ultra 9 285 scoring 4933 against 1616, a delta of 67.2 percent. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 20556 against 6887, a delta of 66.5 percent. The consistency of these multi-core deltas, all above 66 percent, confirms that the 24-core desktop chip dominates in heavily threaded rendering workloads.

Single-core Cinebench results also favor the Ultra 9 285 by wide margins. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 9 285 scores 6909 against 1921, a delta of 72.2 percent. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2901 against 972, a delta of 66.5 percent. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 696 against 293, a delta of 57.9 percent.

PassMark tests show a similar pattern. The smallest overall delta in the dataset appears in PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra 9 285 scores 4881 against 4051, a delta of 17 percent. This is the closest result between the two processors and indicates that the Ultra 7 268V's single-core performance is relatively strong, despite the boost clock disadvantage of 0.60 GHz.

The largest PassMark delta appears in integer math, with the Ultra 9 285 scoring 164869 against 42669, a delta of 74.1 percent. Floating-point math shows 194988 against 57628, a delta of 70.4 percent. Data encryption shows 46949 against 13779, a delta of 70.7 percent. Data compression shows 602121 against 181443, a delta of 69.9 percent. Random string sorting shows 73651 against 22416, a delta of 69.6 percent.

Extended instructions show 45357 against 15323, a delta of 66.2 percent. Multithread performance shows 56602 against 19297, a delta of 65.9 percent. Find prime numbers shows 459 against 192, a delta of 58.2 percent. The physics test shows 3598 against 1617, a delta of 55.1 percent, the smallest multi-core margin recorded.

The average benchmark score difference reinforces the overall picture. The Ultra 9 285 averages 75488, while the Ultra 7 268V averages 20897. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 9 285 include the AMD EPYC 8224P with a delta of -0.1 percent, the AMD EPYC 4545P with a delta of 0.2 percent, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D with a delta of -0.3 percent, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 with a delta of -0.3 percent. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 7 268V include the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE with a delta of 0 percent, the Intel Core i5-12600T with a delta of -0.1 percent, the AMD EPYC 7J13 with a delta of 0.2 percent, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 125U with a delta of 0.3 percent.