Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus wins every recorded head-to-head test against the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H, with 17 wins and 0 losses. The Ultra 7 270HX Plus delivers a 61.4% higher average benchmark score (61834 versus 38312) and sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 9 285H sits at the 86th percentile. The largest margin appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Ultra 7 leads by 177.9%, and in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it leads by 101.7%. The closest contest is PassMark single-thread, a 7.9% advantage for the Ultra 7.

The Ultra 9 285H is not without merit. It carries a higher base clock (2.90 GHz versus 2.40 GHz), a slightly higher boost clock (5.40 GHz versus 5.30 GHz), a lower 45 W TDP, and ECC memory support. It also launched earlier, in January 2025, compared to the Ultra 7's March 2026 release. Buyers who need ECC memory or a lower power envelope have a concrete reason to consider the Ultra 9 285H. For raw performance across every benchmark category, the Ultra 7 270HX Plus is the clear choice.

Architecture Differences

Both processors belong to Intel's Core Ultra Series 2 and are manufactured on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Ultra 7 270HX Plus uses the codename Arrow Lake-HX Refresh, while the Ultra 9 285H uses Arrow Lake-H. The Ultra 7 is built on a 17,800 million transistor design with a 243 mm² die size; the database records no transistor count or die size for the Ultra 9.

The core configurations differ substantially. The Ultra 7 270HX Plus has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Both use the same per-core cache layout: 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core. The shared L3 cache is larger on the Ultra 7, 30 MB versus 24 MB on the Ultra 9.

The memory support also diverges. The Ultra 7 supports DDR5 only, while the Ultra 9 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both run dual-channel memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is unavailable on the Ultra 7 but supported on the Ultra 9.

PCIe lane counts differ: the Ultra 7 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 9 provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ as well: the Ultra 7 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the Ultra 9 uses Arc Graphics 140T. The Ultra 7 has an unlocked multiplier; the Ultra 9 does not. Sockets differ too, with the Ultra 7 on Intel BGA 2114 and the Ultra 9 on Intel BGA 2049.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows the largest gaps. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 7 scores 41913 versus 20781.5 for the Ultra 9, a 101.7% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 5917 versus 2129.5, a 177.9% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core delivers 17603 versus 12201, a 44.3% gap, and R20 single-core delivers 2485 versus 1722, also 44.3%. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 4224 versus 3177.5, a 32.9% lead, while R15 single-core shows 596 versus 313, a 90.4% advantage.

The PassMark suite reinforces the pattern. Data compression scores 493179 for the Ultra 7 versus 335859 for the Ultra 9, a 46.8% lead. Data encryption shows 37813 versus 26140, a 44.7% gap. Extended instructions deliver 39283 versus 26794, a 46.6% lead. Find prime numbers scores 482 versus 330, a 46.1% advantage. Floating point math delivers 163567 versus 109190, a 49.8% lead. Integer math shows 122449 versus 85922, a 42.5% gap. Multithread performance scores 48270 versus 34171, a 41.3% lead. Physics tests show 3843 versus 2513, a 52.9% advantage. Random string sorting delivers 60020 versus 40931, a 46.6% lead.

The only single-threaded PassMark test is closer. The Ultra 7 scores 4764 versus 4415 for the Ultra 9, a 7.9% lead. This narrower margin indicates that in lightly threaded workloads, the Ultra 9's higher boost clock (5.40 GHz versus 5.30 GHz) helps close the gap, though it does not overcome the Ultra 7's advantage.

The database also records Geekbench results for the Ultra 9 only: 14743 multi-core and 2178 single-core. No Geekbench scores appear for the Ultra 7, so a direct comparison in that suite is not possible from the recorded data.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in the following recorded fields:

• Cores: Ultra 7 has 20, Ultra 9 has 16
• Threads: Ultra 7 has 20, Ultra 9 has 16
• Base clock: Ultra 7 at 2.40 GHz, Ultra 9 at 2.90 GHz
• Boost clock: Ultra 7 at 5.30 GHz, Ultra 9 at 5.40 GHz
• TDP: Ultra 7 at 55 W, Ultra 9 at 45 W
• Socket: Ultra 7 on Intel BGA 2114, Ultra 9 on Intel BGA 2049
• Codename: Ultra 7 Arrow Lake-HX Refresh, Ultra 9 Arrow Lake-H
• L3 cache: Ultra 7 at 30 MB, Ultra 9 at 24 MB
• Transistors: Ultra 7 at 17,800 million, Ultra 9 not recorded
• Die size: Ultra 7 at 243 mm², Ultra 9 not recorded
• Memory support: Ultra 7 DDR5, Ultra 9 DDR5 and LPDDR5X
• ECC memory: Ultra 7 false, Ultra 9 true
• PCIe lanes: Ultra 7 Gen 5 with 20 lanes, Ultra 9 Gen 5 with 8 lanes
• Integrated graphics: Ultra 7 Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, Ultra 9 Arc Graphics 140T
• Multiplier unlocked: Ultra 7 true, Ultra 9 false
• Release date: Ultra 7 March 2026, Ultra 9 January 2025
• Launch MSRP: Ultra 7 not recorded, Ultra 9 at $651
• Part number: Ultra 7 SADST, Ultra 9 SRQAL

Identical fields include the 3 nm process node, TSMC foundry, L1 cache at 192 KB per core, L2 cache at 3 MB per core, dual-channel memory bus, 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, and mobile market segment.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Does the Ultra 9 285H support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Ultra 9 285H supports ECC memory. The Ultra 7 270HX Plus does not.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Ultra 9 285H has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, which is 0.10 GHz higher than the Ultra 7 270HX Plus at 5.30 GHz.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Ultra 7 270HX Plus scores 41913, while the Ultra 9 285H scores 20781.5, giving the Ultra 7 a 101.7% advantage.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Ultra 7 270HX Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 9 285H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only).

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The Ultra 9 285H was released in January 2025, while the Ultra 7 270HX Plus was released in March 2026.

Where Each One Wins

The Ultra 7 270HX Plus wins in every benchmark category recorded. Its largest victories are in Cinebench R23 single-core (177.9% ahead) and multi-core (101.7% ahead), which indicates a decisive advantage in both lightly threaded and heavily threaded rendering workloads. The PassMark suite shows consistent leads between 7.9% and 52.9%, covering data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, integer math, multithread performance, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. The 20-core configuration, 30 MB L3 cache, and 20 PCIe lanes give it the structural edge in parallel tasks and high-bandwidth device connectivity. The unlocked multiplier also allows frequency adjustment, which the Ultra 9 cannot offer.

The Ultra 9 285H wins in specific configuration areas, not in benchmark scores. Its 45 W TDP versus the Ultra 7's 55 W makes it the more power-efficient choice for systems where thermal and battery constraints matter. Its ECC memory support targets workloads that require error-correcting memory, a feature absent on the Ultra 7. The higher base clock (2.90 GHz versus 2.40 GHz) and boost clock (5.40 GHz versus 5.30 GHz) narrow the single-thread gap, as shown by the 7.9% PassMark single-thread delta. The support for LPDDR5X memory provides additional memory flexibility. The earlier release date in January 2025 also means the platform has been available longer.

For users prioritizing maximum performance in rendering, data processing, or physics simulations, the Ultra 7 270HX Plus is the only choice from this data. For users who require ECC memory, lower power consumption, or LPDDR5X support, the Ultra 9 285H offers those specific capabilities, accepting a substantial performance trade-off across every benchmark in the database.