Intel Core Ultra 9 285 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V share the Core Ultra Series 2 branding but are engineered for entirely different purposes. The 285 is a desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake architecture, while the 288V is a mobile processor using the Lunar Lake architecture. The recorded benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, with the 285 winning all 17 head-to-head comparisons. This analysis breaks down the architectural roots of that gap and where each processor fits based on the data.

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 dominates in multi-core workloads. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the 285 scores 48945 against the 288V's 10178, a delta of 380.9%. The PassMark multithread test shows a similar trend, with the 285 scoring 56602 versus 19810, a 185.7% advantage.

Q: Is the single-core performance gap as large as the multi-core gap?

A: No, the gap narrows in single-threaded tests but the 285 still wins. In PassMark single-thread, the 285 scores 4881 and the 288V scores 4274, a 14.2% delta. The largest single-core delta is in Cinebench R15, where the 285 leads by 130.8%.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each?

A: The 288V uses LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. The 285 uses DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. Despite the 288V having higher memory bandwidth, the 285's other advantages are decisive.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Which processor is positioned higher in the overall performance percentile?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is in the 76th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The core architectural split between these two parts is fundamental. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is a desktop chip using the Arrow Lake-S die, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It packs 24 cores and 24 threads with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The transistor count is listed at 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is a mobile processor using the Lunar Lake die, also built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It has 8 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Its cache configuration is smaller: 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The database does not list a transistor count or die size for the 288V.

Memory support diverges sharply. The 285 supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth and includes ECC memory support. The 288V supports LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus with a higher 136.5 GB/s of bandwidth but lacks ECC support. PCIe lane counts also differ: the 285 offers 20 CPU lanes on Gen 5, while the 288V offers only 4 CPU lanes on Gen 5. The integrated graphics are different as well, with the 285 using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU and the 288V using Arc 140V.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records a clean sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285, winning all 17 tests. The margins vary from moderate to extreme. The largest single win is in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the 285 scores 48945 against the 288V's 10178, a 380.9% delta. This reflects the massive core-count advantage in a heavily parallel workload.

The Cinebench R20 multicore test shows a 190.8% delta, with the 285 scoring 20556 and the 288V scoring 7069. Cinebench R15 multicore shows a 211.6% delta, 4933 versus 1583. The single-core Cinebench results are also lopsided. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 285 scores 6909 against 1950, a 254.3% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 191% delta (2901 versus 997), and Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 130.8% delta (696 versus 301.5).

PassMark tests reinforce the pattern. The integer math test shows a 274.5% delta (164869 versus 44019), and floating-point math shows a 227.5% delta (194988 versus 59536). Data compression yields a 222.8% delta (602121 versus 186521), and data encryption shows a 232% delta (46949 versus 14141). Random string sorting is 225.6% higher on the 285 (73651 versus 22622). Extended instructions show a 190.5% delta (45357 versus 15613).

The closest margin appears in PassMark single-thread, where the 285 scores 4881 and the 288V scores 4274, a 14.2% delta. This test shows that the 288V's higher base clock and architectural efficiency narrow the gap when only one thread is active. The physics test shows a 119.8% delta (3598 versus 1637), and find prime numbers shows a 135.4% delta (459 versus 195). The multithread test shows a 185.7% delta (56602 versus 19810).

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show distinct differences across nearly every major category. The 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The base clock differs: 2.50 GHz for the 285 versus 3.30 GHz for the 288V. The boost clock is higher on the 285 at 5.60 GHz versus 5.10 GHz.

Thermal design power is a major separator. The 285 is rated at 65 W TDP, while the 288V is rated at 30 W TDP. The sockets are incompatible: the 285 uses Intel Socket 1851, and the 288V uses Intel BGA 2833. The process node is the same at 3 nm from TSMC, but the architecture names differ (Arrow Lake-S versus Lunar Lake).

Cache sizes diverge at the L2 and L3 levels. The 285 has 3 MB of L2 per core and 36 MB of shared L3, while the 288V has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 12 MB of shared L3. Memory support differs (DDR5 versus LPDDR5X), and ECC support is present only on the 285. Memory bandwidth is higher on the 288V at 136.5 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. PCIe lanes differ (20 versus 4), and the integrated GPU models are different (Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU versus Arc 140V). The 285 has a launch MSRP of $579. The 288V has no recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every recorded test. Its 24 cores and 24 threads provide a decisive edge in multithreaded workloads, as shown by the 380.9% delta in Cinebench R23 multicore and the 274.5% delta in PassMark integer math. The 285 also wins in single-thread tests, with a 14.2% lead in PassMark single-thread, indicating its higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz delivers superior peak performance. The 285 is the clear choice for workloads that scale across many cores, such as video rendering, data compression, and scientific computing.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V, despite losing all 17 head-to-head tests, has strengths that the data reflects indirectly. Its 30 W TDP is less than half that of the 285, making it suited for power-constrained environments. Its base clock of 3.30 GHz is higher than the 285's 2.50 GHz, and its memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s exceeds the 285's 102.4 GB/s. These specifications indicate the 288V is designed for efficiency and responsiveness in mobile or compact systems. The 288V's closest benchmark result to the 285 is in PassMark single-thread, where the 14.2% delta shows its single-core capability is competitive. The 288V also sits in the 76th percentile of all CPUs, confirming it is not a low-performance part, just one designed for a different power and form-factor envelope. The 285's 95th percentile ranking places it among the top tier of desktop processors.