Intel Core Ultra 9 285 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data positions the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 as the dominant processor across every measured benchmark, winning all 17 head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H. The Ultra 9 285 delivers a multi-core performance advantage that ranges from 25.9% in the PassMark physics test to 93.3% in random string sorting, with the average benchmark score of 75488 placing it at the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Ultra X7 368H, with an average score of 40518, sits at the 87th percentile and competes with a different class of processors entirely, its nearest rivals being the Intel Core 7 253PE and Intel Core 5 223PE, both within 0.2% of its average score.

The Ultra 9 285 targets desktop workloads where sustained multi-threaded performance matters most. Its nearest rivals in the database are server and workstation processors, including the AMD EPYC 8224P (0.1% lower average score) and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D (0.3% higher), indicating that it competes in the high-end desktop and entry workstation segment. The Ultra X7 368H, by contrast, sits among mobile and efficiency-focused parts, with the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H matching its average score within 0.2%. Users requiring maximum compute throughput for rendering, compilation, or scientific workloads should select the Ultra 9 285. The Ultra X7 368H serves the mobile segment where the 25 W TDP and integrated Arc B390 graphics define its role, though the data shows it trails the desktop part substantially in every measured workload.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and foundries. The Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. The Ultra X7 368H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically Panther Lake-H, also on a 3 nm process but fabricated at Intel, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3. The transistor count and die size for the Ultra 9 285 are recorded as 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the database lists no transistor count or die size for the Ultra X7 368H.

Core configuration differs sharply. The Ultra 9 285 provides 24 cores and 24 threads with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The Ultra X7 368H provides 16 cores and 16 threads with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading, as both have equal core and thread counts. Cache hierarchies also diverge: both share the same 192 KB L1 cache per core, but the Ultra 9 285 has 3 MB of L2 per core and 36 MB of shared L3, while the Ultra X7 368H has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 18 MB of shared L3.

Memory and I/O capabilities reflect their different market positions. The Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and includes ECC memory support. The Ultra X7 368H supports LPDDR5X on a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth and lacks ECC support. The desktop part exposes 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the mobile part exposes 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the Ultra X7 368H uses Arc B390. The Ultra 9 285 uses the Intel Socket 1851, the Ultra X7 368H uses Intel BGA 2540. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 reaches a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, compared to 5.00 GHz for the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H. The desktop part also has a higher base clock at 2.50 GHz versus 2.00 GHz.

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

A: The Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Ultra X7 368H scores 28221. This represents a 73.4% advantage for the desktop processor, consistent with its 24-core versus 16-core configuration.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Ultra 9 285 includes ECC memory support, while the Ultra X7 368H does not. This aligns with the desktop part's positioning against workstation and server-class rivals.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The Ultra 9 285 has a TDP of 65 W, while the Ultra X7 368H has a TDP of 25 W. The mobile processor consumes less power but also delivers substantially lower performance across all measured benchmarks.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Ultra 9 285 provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, whereas the Ultra X7 368H provides only 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. This reflects the desktop part's ability to support multiple high-bandwidth expansion devices.

Q: How does single-threaded performance compare?

A: In PassMark single-thread testing, the Ultra 9 285 scores 4881 against 4005 for the Ultra X7 368H, a 21.9% advantage. The gap is smaller than in multi-threaded workloads, indicating the mobile part retains reasonable per-core efficiency.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 | Intel Core Ultra X7 368H |

|---|---|---|

| Series | Core Ultra Series 2 | Core Ultra Series 3 |

| Cores | 24 | 16 |

| Threads | 24 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.60 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-S | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake) | Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 243 mm² | Not listed |

| L2 Cache | 3 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 36 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU | Arc B390 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2024-12-31 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $579 | Not listed |

| Part Number | SRQD4 | SA4R7Q9EJ |

Both processors share the same 192 KB L1 cache per core, dual-channel memory bus, and locked multiplier. The Ultra 9 285 has a higher transistor count and larger die, while the Ultra X7 368H provides higher memory bandwidth despite lower core counts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a consistent and substantial victory for the Ultra 9 285 across all 17 recorded comparisons. The largest margin appears in PassMark random string sorting, where the Ultra 9 285 scores 73651 against 38093, a 93.3% advantage. Data compression follows closely with a 92.4% delta, the desktop part scoring 602121 versus 312927. Integer math shows an 87.2% lead (164869 versus 88083), and data encryption shows an 86.1% lead (46949 versus 25228). Floating point math delivers an 84.5% advantage (194988 versus 105681), while extended instructions come in at 76.7% (45357 versus 25669).

The Cinebench suite shows remarkably consistent results across all versions. Cinebench R15 multi-core gives the Ultra 9 285 a 73.5% lead (4933 versus 2844), R20 multi-core a 73.4% lead (20556 versus 11852), and R23 multi-core a 73.4% lead (48945 versus 28221). Single-core results follow the same pattern: R15 shows 73.6% (696 versus 401), R20 shows 73.4% (2901 versus 1673), and R23 shows 73.4% (6909 versus 3984). PassMark multi-thread performance shows a 71.8% delta (56602 versus 32956).

The smallest advantages appear in tests that depend less on raw core count. PassMark physics gives the Ultra 9 285 a 25.9% lead (3598 versus 2857), and PassMark single-thread shows a 21.9% lead (4881 versus 4005). Prime number finding shows a 43% advantage (459 versus 321), which remains substantial but is the second-smallest margin in the dataset. These results indicate that the Ultra X7 368H maintains some competitiveness in lightly threaded and latency-sensitive workloads, but the overall pattern is unambiguous: the Ultra 9 285 wins every recorded comparison, and the average benchmark gap of roughly 86% between the two processors places them in entirely different performance tiers.