Intel Core Ultra 9 285 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and Intel Core Ultra X7 358H are both active Intel parts, but they target entirely different segments of the market. The Ultra 9 285 is a desktop processor built for Arrow Lake, while the Ultra X7 358H is a mobile processor from the Panther Lake series. The database records a total of 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 of them. Despite this sweep, the two chips serve distinct purposes, and the data shows clear reasons for each one's existence.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 dominates every recorded benchmark category against the Ultra X7 358H. The largest lead appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Ultra 9 285 scores 6909 against 2080 for the mobile chip, a delta of 232.2%. This is not a close contest in raw performance. The desktop part also leads in Cinebench R23 multi-core with a score of 48945 versus 18747, a 161.1% advantage.

The Ultra X7 358H does not win any of the 17 head-to-head tests. However, its strengths are not visible in raw performance scores; they appear in efficiency and platform characteristics. The mobile chip has a TDP of 25, compared to 65 for the desktop part. The Ultra X7 358H also uses LPDDR5X memory with a recorded bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, which is higher than the 102.4 GB/s of the Ultra 9 285's DDR5 support. These traits make the mobile part suitable for systems where power draw and memory bandwidth density matter more than absolute compute throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design lineages. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the codename Arrow Lake-S, and it belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. The Ultra X7 358H uses the Panther Lake codename with the Panther Lake-H generation label, and it belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3. Both chips are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ: TSMC produces the Ultra 9 285, while Intel fabricates the Ultra X7 358H.

Core counts separate the two clearly. The Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither chip uses simultaneous multithreading. The L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core, and L2 is also the same at 3 MB per core. The shared L3 cache differs significantly: the desktop part has 36 MB, while the mobile part has 18 MB.

Clock speeds reflect the desktop versus mobile split. The Ultra 9 285 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The Ultra X7 358H runs at 1.90 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The desktop chip draws more power, with a TDP of 65 versus 25 for the mobile chip.

Memory support also diverges. The Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus, while the Ultra X7 358H supports LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus. ECC memory is supported on the desktop part but not on the mobile part. PCIe lanes differ as well: the Ultra 9 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra X7 358H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics vary between the two. The Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Ultra X7 358H uses Arc B390 graphics. The desktop part uses a socketed design, Intel Socket 1851, while the mobile part is soldered to Intel BGA 2540. The Ultra 9 285 has a launch MSRP of $579; the Ultra X7 358H has no recorded launch MSRP. The desktop part has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while those figures are not recorded for the mobile chip.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion for anyone comparing raw compute: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the overwhelmingly faster processor. It wins all 17 head-to-head benchmarks, with margins ranging from 18.4% in PassMark single-thread to 232.2% in Cinebench R23 single-core. Its average benchmark score of 75488 places it at the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra X7 358H has an average score of 40967 and sits at the 87th percentile.

The Ultra X7 358H is not a competitor to the Ultra 9 285; it is a different product for a different form factor. The mobile chip's 25 TDP, LPDDR5X support, and higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s suggest it belongs in a thin-and-light laptop or a compact mobile workstation. The desktop part's 65 TDP, DDR5 support, and 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes indicate a tower desktop with expansion capacity.

For users building or buying a desktop system with maximum multi-threaded throughput, the Ultra 9 285 is the clear choice from the recorded data. For users who need a mobile processor with a modest power envelope and faster memory bandwidth, the Ultra X7 358H is the only one of the two that fits that physical constraint. The desktop chip cannot be installed in a mobile socket, and the mobile chip cannot power a desktop tower. The selection is dictated by platform, not by benchmark preference.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Ultra 9 285 scores 6909 versus 2080 for the Ultra X7 358H, a 232.2% lead.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, while the Ultra X7 358H does not.

Q: Which chip has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Ultra X7 358H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s with LPDDR5X, while the Ultra 9 285 has 102.4 GB/s with DDR5.

Q: Are the two chips built on the same process node?

A: Yes, both are on a 3 nm process, but the Ultra 9 285 is fabricated by TSMC and the Ultra X7 358H is fabricated by Intel.

Q: How many head-to-head benchmarks did the Ultra X7 358H win?

A: The database records zero wins for the Ultra X7 358H out of 17 head-to-head tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows the most dramatic separation. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 against 18747 for the Ultra X7 358H, a 161.1% lead. The single-core version of that test shows a 232.2% advantage for the desktop part, with scores of 6909 and 2080. Cinebench R20 multi-core results are 20556 versus 12011, a 71.1% gap, and single-core is 2901 versus 1695, a 71.2% gap. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 4933 versus 3027, a 63% lead, while single-core shows 696 versus 301.5, a 130.8% lead.

PassMark tests also go entirely to the Ultra 9 285. The largest PassMark margin is in integer math, where the desktop part scores 164869 against 83147, a 98.3% advantage. Floating point math shows 194988 versus 103842, an 87.8% lead. Data compression results are 602121 versus 332508, an 81.1% gap. Data encryption shows 46949 versus 26046, an 80.3% lead. Random string sorting goes 73651 versus 40357, an 82.5% gap. Extended instructions produce 45357 versus 27274, a 66.3% lead.

The smallest margins appear in tests that are less core-count dependent. PassMark physics shows 3598 versus 3021, a 19.1% lead for the desktop part. PassMark single-thread (listed twice in the database as PassMark single_thread and PassMark singlethread) shows 4881 versus 4124, an 18.4% lead in both entries. PassMark find prime numbers shows 459 versus 337, a 36.2% advantage. PassMark multithread shows 56602 versus 33802, a 67.5% lead.

The average benchmark score for the Ultra 9 285 is 75488, placing it at the 95th percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are AMD EPYC 8224P with an average score of 75582 and a delta of -0.1%, AMD EPYC 4545P with 75373 and a delta of 0.2%, AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D with 75716 and a delta of -0.3%, and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 with 75738 and a delta of -0.3%. The Ultra X7 358H has an average score of 40967, at the 87th percentile. Its nearest rivals are AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 with 41208 and a delta of -0.6%, Intel Core Ultra 7 356H with 41215 and a delta of -0.6%, AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G with 40718 and a delta of 0.6%, and Intel Core Ultra 7 366H with 41263 and a delta of -0.7%.

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity: the Ultra 9 285 is the superior processor in every measured metric. The Ultra X7 358H exists to serve a different physical and power envelope, where its 25 TDP and 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth are the relevant figures. The 17-0 head-to-head sweep confirms that these are complementary products rather than direct rivals.