Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX are two 24-core, 24-thread processors built on the same Arrow Lake architecture and TSMC 3nm process, yet they target different platforms—one desktop, one mobile. The benchmark data shows they are remarkably close in overall performance, with the desktop 285 winning 13 of 17 direct comparisons, while the mobile 275HX takes 4 wins in specific memory and compression tasks. Both sit at the 97th percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores differ by less than one percent, making the choice less about raw speed and more about platform fit and workload nuances.

FAQ

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two chips?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX has an average benchmark score of 76024, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 75400. That puts the mobile chip 0.8% ahead of the desktop part according to the nearestRivals data, though the 285’s own rival list shows the 275HX at a -0.8% delta, meaning the two are effectively trading places depending on which reference point you use.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench multi-core tests?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests, but by very slim margins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 48087 versus 48008 for the 275HX, a 0.2% lead. Similar 0.2% margins appear in R15 (4847 vs 4839) and R20 (20196 vs 20163).

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the mobile 275HX clearly outperforms the desktop 285?

A: Yes, the 275HX wins in PassMark data compression (618338 vs 602121, a 2.6% lead), data encryption (48016 vs 46949, 2.2% ahead), extended instructions (47687 vs 45357, 4.9% ahead), and random string sorting (75710 vs 73651, 2.7% ahead). These are the four tests where the mobile part takes the win.

Q: What is the difference in single-thread performance?

A: The desktop 285 leads in single-thread PassMark tests with a score of 4881 versus 4727 for the 275HX, a 3.3% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap narrows to 6788 vs 6777, just 0.2% in favor of the 285.

Q: Do both processors have the same cache configuration?

A: Yes, both feature 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The architecture, codename (Arrow Lake-S for the 285, Arrow Lake-HX for the 275HX), process node, foundry, transistor count, and die size are all identical.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 boosts to 5.60 GHz, while the 275HX reaches 5.40 GHz. The mobile chip has a slightly higher base clock at 2.70 GHz versus 2.50 GHz for the desktop part.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same fundamental architecture. Both are built on Arrow Lake, with the 285 carrying the Arrow Lake-S codename for desktop and the 275HX using Arrow Lake-HX for mobile. They are fabricated on TSMC’s 3nm process, with identical transistor counts and die sizes. The core configuration is also the same: 24 cores and 24 threads, with no hyperthreading, and cache allocations are identical across L1, L2, and L3.

The key architectural divergence is in the socket and platform. The 285 uses Intel Socket 1851 and is classified as a desktop part, while the 275HX uses Intel BGA 2114 and is a mobile processor. This difference determines how each chip is deployed, but it does not change the underlying silicon design. Both support DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, and both offer PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics are the same on both: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The 285 supports ECC memory, while the 275HX does not. The 275HX has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the 285 does not, which is notable given the 285 is the desktop part. The 285 lists a launch MSRP of $579; the 275HX has no listed launch MSRP. The production status is Active for both.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 dominates in compute-heavy tasks that rely on integer math and physics calculations. Its PassMark physics score of 3598 versus 3377 for the 275HX gives it a 6.5% edge, the largest single benchmark margin in the entire comparison. It also wins integer math by 5.5% (164869 vs 156314), which suggests an advantage in general computational workloads, spreadsheet-style calculations, and any application that processes large amounts of integer data. Single-thread performance is also clearly in the 285’s favor, with a 3.3% lead in PassMark single-thread tests, making it the better choice for lightly threaded applications like older games or legacy software.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX, despite being a mobile part, wins in specific memory and data-handling scenarios. Its 4.9% lead in extended instructions (47687 vs 45357) indicates better performance on SIMD-style workloads, which could translate to multimedia encoding or scientific simulations that use AVX instructions. Data compression is 2.6% faster on the 275HX, and random string sorting is 2.7% faster, pointing to advantages in database operations and file archiving. Data encryption is also 2.2% faster on the mobile chip, which matters for security-focused workloads.

The overall pattern is that the desktop 285 wins in raw compute and single-threaded tasks, while the mobile 275HX excels in memory-access patterns and instruction-heavy workloads. For a typical user, the 285’s wins are more likely to matter in everyday use, but the 275HX’s strengths are relevant for specific professional applications.

Specification Differences

Comparing the two processors field by field, the differences are concentrated in platform-related specs rather than core architecture. The 285 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz, while the 275HX runs at 2.70 GHz. Boost clocks favor the 285 at 5.60 GHz versus 5.40 GHz for the 275HX. Thermal design power differs, with the 285 rated at 65 and the 275HX at 55, though the data does not specify cooling requirements.

The sockets are entirely different: Intel Socket 1851 for the desktop 285 and Intel BGA 2114 for the mobile 275HX. This is the defining distinction—you cannot swap one for the other without changing the entire platform. ECC memory support is present on the 285 but absent on the 275HX. The multiplier is unlocked on the 275HX but locked on the 285, an unusual inversion given the 285 is the desktop part.

The 285 has a part number of SRQD4, while the 275HX is SRVFK. The 285 has a launch MSRP of $579; the 275HX has no launch MSRP listed. The 275HX has a release date of 2025-01-12, while the 285 has no release date in the data. Everything else—cores, threads, cache, memory support, bandwidth, PCIe lanes, integrated graphics, process node, foundry, transistors, and die size—is identical.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows 17 benchmark comparisons, with the 285 winning 13 and the 275HX taking 4. The biggest win for the 285 comes in PassMark physics, where it scores 3598 against 3377, a 6.5% margin. This is followed by integer math, where the 285’s 164869 beats the 275HX’s 156314 by 5.5%. Single-thread performance shows a 3.3% lead for the 285 in both PassMark single-thread and singlethread tests, with scores of 4881 versus 4727.

The 285 also wins all six Cinebench tests, though by narrow margins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 48087 versus 48008 (0.2%), and in single-core it scores 6788 versus 6777 (0.2%). The R15 and R20 tests show similar 0.1% to 0.2% leads for the 285. PassMark floating point math goes to the 285 at 194988 versus 193324 (0.9%), and find prime numbers is a 0.4% win for the 285 (459 vs 457). Multithread also favors the 285 at 56602 versus 56415 (0.3%).

The 275HX’s wins are concentrated in PassMark data-handling tests. It leads extended instructions by the largest margin at 4.9% (47687 vs 45357). Data compression shows a 2.6% lead (618338 vs 602121), random string sorting a 2.7% lead (75710 vs 73651), and data encryption a 2.2% lead (48016 vs 46949). These are meaningful margins for specific workloads, but they do not offset the 285’s overall breadth of wins.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on platform rather than performance. If you are building a desktop system, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the only choice between these two, as the 275HX uses a BGA socket that cannot be installed in a desktop motherboard. The 285’s wins in physics, integer math, and single-thread performance make it the stronger all-around desktop processor, and its ECC memory support adds value for workstation builds that require data integrity.

For a mobile workstation, the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is the relevant part. It is not slower in any meaningful overall sense—its average benchmark score is actually 0.8% higher than the 285’s—and it wins in extended instructions, data compression, encryption, and string sorting. The unlocked multiplier on the 275HX also offers overclocking headroom on mobile platforms that support it, which is unusual for a laptop-class chip.

The benchmark results indicate that these two processors are near-identical in performance, with the 285 holding a slight edge in compute-heavy tasks and the 275HX countering in memory-oriented workloads. The decision should be driven by your platform requirements: desktop users pick the 285, mobile users pick the 275HX. Neither chip is a wrong choice for its intended market, and the 97th percentile ranking for both confirms they sit at the top of the CPU hierarchy.