Intel Core Ultra 9 285 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a decisive outcome: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H. The desktop part holds a commanding average benchmark score of 75,488, while the mobile processor manages 38,312. This places the 285 at the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, whereas the 285H sits at the 86th percentile. The desktop chip outperforms its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 8224P, by a marginal 0.1 percent, while the mobile chip trails the Intel Core 9 270H by the same slim margin.

The choice between these two processors depends entirely on the intended deployment environment. The 285 is a desktop-only part with a 65 TDP, designed for systems where thermal headroom and power delivery are less constrained. The 285H is a mobile processor with a 45 TDP, built for laptops where efficiency and thermals dictate design priorities. The data shows no scenario where the 285H wins a benchmark, but that does not render it useless; it simply serves a different physical form factor. Users building a desktop workstation should select the 285, while those requiring a high-end mobile platform must take the 285H despite its lower scores. The launch MSRP for the 285 is $579, and for the 285H it is $651.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every recorded benchmark category. The largest margins appear in multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 285 scores 48,945 against the 285H's 20,781.5, a 135.5 percent advantage. This pattern repeats across PassMark integer math, where the 285 delivers 164,869 versus 85,922, a 91.9 percent lead. Data compression shows a 79.3 percent gap, with the desktop part scoring 602,121 against 335,859. The desktop chip also dominates data encryption, floating point math, and random string sorting, each exceeding a 78 percent delta.

Single-thread performance tells a more nuanced story. The 285 leads in PassMark single-thread with 4,881 against 4,415, a modest 10.6 percent margin. However, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap expands dramatically to 224.4 percent, with scores of 6,909 and 2,129.5. This suggests the 285H's single-core behavior varies significantly across different testing methodologies. The 285 wins in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests by margins ranging from 68.5 to 224.4 percent. The 285H has no benchmark category where it takes the lead, but its PassMark single-thread score of 4,415 shows it remains competitive in lighter workloads.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Arrow Lake architecture and the 3 nm TSMC process node. They belong to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation, yet they diverge substantially in physical configuration. The 285 is the desktop Arrow Lake-S variant, built for Intel Socket 1851. The 285H is the mobile Arrow Lake-H variant, using Intel BGA 2049. The desktop chip contains 24 cores and 24 threads, while the mobile chip has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor enables hyperthreading, so thread counts equal core counts.

The cache hierarchy reveals further separation. Both parts allocate 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache differs: the 285 offers 36 MB, the 285H offers 24 MB. This 12 MB difference contributes to the desktop part's multi-thread advantage. The desktop 285 also carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the database records no transistor count or die size for the 285H. The 285's larger physical footprint accommodates additional cores and cache.

Memory support overlaps but not completely. Both support DDR5 in dual-channel configuration with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 285H additionally supports LPDDR5X, which suits mobile power constraints. Both processors support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs sharply: the 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the 285H offers Gen 5 with only 8 lanes. Integrated graphics also differ, with the 285 using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units and the 285H using Arc Graphics 140T. The desktop part's base clock runs at 2.50 GHz with a boost of 5.60 GHz, while the mobile part starts higher at 2.90 GHz base but peaks lower at 5.40 GHz boost.

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 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor supports hyperthreading, so each core corresponds to one thread.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 285 records an average benchmark score of 75,488, placing it at the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The 285H records 38,312, placing it at the 86th percentile. The 285's nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 8224P with a 0.1 percent difference, while the 285H's nearest rival is the Intel Core 9 270H with a 0.1 percent difference.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The 285 has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The 285H has 24 MB of shared L3 cache. Both processors use 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the 285 and the 285H support ECC memory. Both also support DDR5 in dual-channel configuration with 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth. The 285H adds support for LPDDR5X memory.

Q: Which processor has higher boost clock speed?

A: The 285 reaches a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, while the 285H reaches 5.40 GHz. The 285H has a higher base clock at 2.90 GHz compared to the 285's 2.50 GHz.

Q: How many benchmark comparisons did each processor win?

A: The 285 won all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons recorded in the database. The 285H won zero comparisons. The largest single margin was 224.4 percent in Cinebench R23 single-core, favoring the 285.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite reveals the starkest performance separation. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 285 scores 48,945 against the 285H's 20,781.5, a 135.5 percent lead. This test stresses sustained multi-thread throughput, and the desktop part's additional 8 cores and 12 MB of L3 cache produce a substantial advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows an even larger relative gap, with the 285 scoring 6,909 versus 2,129.5, a 224.4 percent delta. That single-core result is surprising given the 285H's higher base clock of 2.90 GHz; the gap likely stems from power delivery differences between desktop and mobile platforms rather than raw clock capability.

Cinebench R20 results follow the same trajectory. Multi-core scores show the 285 at 20,556 against 12,201, a 68.5 percent margin. Single-core in R20 also shows 68.5 percent, with the 285 at 2,901 and the 285H at 1,722. Cinebench R15 repeats the pattern: multi-core favors the 285 by 55.2 percent (4,933 versus 3,177.5), while single-core shows a 122.4 percent gap (696 versus 313). The R15 single-core result is particularly notable because it sits far from the R20 and R23 single-core deltas, indicating that the 285H's single-thread performance varies widely depending on the benchmark generation.

PassMark tests provide a broader view of everyday computational tasks. The 285 leads integer math by 91.9 percent, scoring 164,869 against 85,922. Floating point math shows a 78.6 percent gap, with scores of 194,988 and 109,190. Data encryption favors the 285 by 79.6 percent (46,949 versus 26,140), while data compression shows a 79.3 percent delta (602,121 versus 335,859). Extended instructions yield a 69.3 percent advantage for the 285, scoring 45,357 versus 26,794. Random string sorting shows 79.9 percent, with 73,651 against 40,931. Find prime numbers delivers the smallest multi-thread margin at 39.1 percent, with the 285 at 459 and the 285H at 330. PassMark physics shows a 43.2 percent gap, with 3,598 versus 2,513.

PassMark multithread and single-thread tests complete the picture. Multithread favors the 285 by 65.6 percent, scoring 56,602 against 34,171. Single-thread shows the closest result of any comparison: the 285 scores 4,881 and the 285H scores 4,415, a 10.6 percent delta. This near parity in PassMark single-thread contrasts sharply with the Cinebench single-core results, suggesting the 285H can perform adequately in light single-threaded tasks despite its deficits in prolonged multi-thread workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge across nearly every physical and electrical specification. The 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads; the 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ, with the 285 at 2.50 GHz and the 285H at 2.90 GHz. Boost clocks differ in the opposite direction, with the 285 reaching 5.60 GHz and the 285H reaching 5.40 GHz. TDP ratings separate the platforms: the 285 consumes 65, while the 285H consumes 45. The 285 uses Intel Socket 1851, while the 285H uses Intel BGA 2049.

Cache configurations differ only in L3 size. Both have 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core. The 285 provides 36 MB of shared L3, while the 285H provides 24 MB. Memory support overlaps on DDR5 and dual-channel with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, but the 285H adds LPDDR5X support. The 285 offers PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, whereas the 285H offers PCIe Gen 5 with 8 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: the 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the 285H uses Arc Graphics 140T. The 285 has a documented 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die; the database records no such figures for the 285H. ECC memory support is present on both. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The 285's part number is SRQD4, and the 285H's is SRQAL. Release dates place the 285 at the end of 2024 and the 285H in January 2025.