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

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has an average benchmark score of 76,155, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 75,488. The HX part leads by roughly 0.9% in overall aggregate performance.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins decisively with a score of 48,945 versus 36,429.5 for the 285HX. That is a 25.6% advantage for the desktop part in this heavily threaded workload.

Q: Which processor has the better single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 dominates single-core tests. It scores 6,909 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 2,187.5 for the 285HX, a 68.3% lead. PassMark single-thread scores also favor the 285, 4,881 to 4,618.

Q: Are these chips in the same performance percentile overall?

A: Yes, both sit at the 95th percentile among all CPUs. Their nearest rivals differ slightly—the 285HX is 0.1% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX, while the 285 is 0.1% behind the AMD EPYC 8224P.

Q: Do the two processors share the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both have 24 cores and 24 threads. They also share identical cache configurations: 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, slightly higher than the 285HX’s 5.50 GHz. The base clocks differ as well, with the HX at 2.80 GHz and the desktop part at 2.50 GHz.

Architecture Differences

Both processors belong to Intel’s Core Ultra Series 2 and are built on the Arrow Lake architecture, but they target different market segments. The 285HX is a mobile part with the Arrow Lake-HX codename, while the 285 is a desktop chip with the Arrow Lake-S codename. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 3 nm process node, and both pack 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

The core configuration is identical on paper: 24 cores and 24 threads, with no hyperthreading, as indicated by equal core and thread counts. The cache hierarchy is also the same, with 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. Both support DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, and both support ECC memory.

Integrated graphics are identical as well, with Arc Xe-LPG Graphics featuring 64 execution units. PCIe support is the same: Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The key architectural differences lie in packaging and platform. The 285HX uses the Intel BGA 2114 socket and is designed for mobile systems, while the 285 uses the Intel Socket 1851 for desktop builds.

Clock speeds differ, with the 285HX having a higher base clock of 2.80 GHz versus 2.50 GHz for the 285, but the desktop chip has a higher boost clock at 5.60 GHz versus 5.50 GHz. The TDP also separates them, with the mobile part rated at 55 watts and the desktop part at 65 watts. The 285HX has an unlocked multiplier, while the 285 does not. The release dates are close, with the 285 launching on 2024-12-31 and the 285HX on 2025-01-12.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results reveal a clear split between the two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins 9 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the 285HX wins 8. However, the margins tell a more nuanced story.

The desktop 285 achieves its largest victories in single-core workloads. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the 285 scores 696 versus 323.5 for the 285HX, a staggering 53.5% lead. The Cinebench R23 single-core test shows a similar gap, with the 285 at 6,909 and the 285HX at 2,187.5, a 68.3% difference. These are not marginal wins; they represent a fundamental advantage in lightly threaded performance for the desktop part.

Multi-core results are more mixed. The 285 wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 48,945 versus 36,429.5, a 25.6% margin. It also edges out the 285HX in Cinebench R20 multi-core, 20,556 to 20,236, though by only 1.6%. However, the 285HX wins Cinebench R15 multi-core, scoring 5,656.5 against 4,933, a 14.7% advantage. This reversal suggests the mobile part performs relatively better in older or shorter multi-threaded workloads.

In PassMark tests, the 285HX takes several wins. It leads in data compression, 631,885 to 602,121, a 4.9% margin. Data encryption favors the 285HX by 3.4%, with 48,567 versus 46,949. Extended instructions go to the 285HX by 8.4%, 49,148 to 45,357. Random string sorting is another 285HX win, 77,196 to 73,651, a 4.8% edge. Find prime numbers is essentially a tie, with the 285HX at 460 and the 285 at 459, a 0.2% difference. Floating-point math is also nearly identical, 194,998 versus 194,988.

The 285 counters in PassMark with integer math, scoring 164,869 against 155,076, a 5.9% win. It also takes physics, 3,598 to 3,476, a 3.4% margin. PassMark multi-thread is close, with the 285HX winning 56,902 to 56,602, just 0.5% ahead. Single-thread PassMark goes to the 285, 4,881 to 4,618, a 5.4% lead.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications despite sharing the same architecture and core configuration.

• Base clock: 2.80 GHz (285HX) vs 2.50 GHz (285)
• Boost clock: 5.50 GHz (285HX) vs 5.60 GHz (285)
• TDP: 55 W (285HX) vs 65 W (285)
• Socket: Intel BGA 2114 (285HX) vs Intel Socket 1851 (285)
• Codename: Arrow Lake-HX (285HX) vs Arrow Lake-S (285)
• Market segment: Mobile (285HX) vs Desktop (285)
• Multiplier unlocked: Yes (285HX) vs No (285)
• Part number: SRVFJ (285HX) vs SRQD4 (285)
• Release date: 2025-01-12 (285HX) vs 2024-12-31 (285)
• Launch MSRP: $579 (285 only; the 285HX has no listed launch MSRP)

All other specifications are identical: 24 cores, 24 threads, 3 nm process, 17,800 million transistors, 243 mm² die size, cache configuration, DDR5 dual-channel memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, ECC support, Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes, and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX excels in scenarios that leverage its strengths in specific workloads. It wins 8 head-to-head tests, with notable leads in data compression (4.9%), extended instructions (8.4%), and random string sorting (4.8%). These results suggest the mobile part handles data-heavy tasks with particular efficiency. Its Cinebench R15 multi-core win by 14.7% indicates strong performance in certain legacy benchmark scenarios. The 285HX also holds a slight edge in PassMark multi-thread, 56,902 to 56,602, making it competitive for general multi-threaded workloads in a mobile form factor.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the clear choice for single-core performance. Its 68.3% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 53.5% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core are overwhelming. It also wins in Cinebench R20 single-core by 1.6% and PassMark single-thread by 5.4%. For multi-core rendering, the 285 dominates in Cinebench R23, with a 25.6% advantage, and edges ahead in Cinebench R20 multi-core by 1.6%. Its wins in integer math (5.9%) and physics (3.4%) round out a profile suited for desktop productivity.

The data indicates the 285HX is optimized for mobile workloads that mix data processing and encryption, while the 285 is built for desktop tasks that prioritize single-thread speed and sustained multi-core rendering. Neither chip wins all categories, but their respective strengths align with their market segments.

The Verdict

Based strictly on benchmark data, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the stronger processor for most compute-heavy tasks. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 48,945 is 25.6% higher than the 285HX’s 36,429.5, making it the better choice for rendering, compilation, and other long-running multi-threaded workloads. The single-core advantage is even more pronounced, with the 285 leading by 68.3% in Cinebench R23 single-core. For users who run applications that rely heavily on single-thread performance, the 285 is the clear winner.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX is not without merit. Its wins in data compression, encryption, and extended instructions suggest it handles certain data-centric tasks more efficiently. The 14.7% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core and the near-tie in PassMark multi-thread show it is competitive in some multi-threaded scenarios. Its lower TDP of 55 watts versus 65 watts makes it suitable for mobile systems where power efficiency matters.

For a desktop user prioritizing raw performance, especially in single-thread and modern multi-core benchmarks, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the recommended choice. For a mobile user who needs a capable processor for data-heavy workloads in a laptop, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX offers specific advantages. The overall average benchmark scores are close, with the 285HX at 76,155 and the 285 at 75,488, but the distribution of wins favors the desktop part in the most demanding scenarios. Both chips sit at the 95th percentile among all CPUs, so either represents top-tier performance within its respective segment.