Intel Core Ultra 9 285 vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database shows a clear performance hierarchy between these two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H. The Core Ultra 9 285 is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP, while the Core Ultra X9 378H is a mobile processor with a 25 W TDP. The data indicates that the desktop chip delivers substantially higher performance across every measured workload, with the average benchmark score of 75488 placing it at the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The mobile chip has an average benchmark score of 47468 and sits at the 89th percentile.

The Core Ultra 9 285 is the appropriate choice for workloads where maximum compute throughput matters, such as rendering, data compression, and encryption tasks. The Core Ultra X9 378H, despite its lower scores, offers a much lower thermal envelope at 25 W, which matters for portable systems. The data indicates that the desktop chip is the performance leader, but the mobile chip is the only option for systems requiring the Intel BGA 2540 socket. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851, so they are not interchangeable platforms.

The Core Ultra 9 285 carries a launch MSRP of $579. The mobile part has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The performance differences are not subtle. In integer math, the desktop chip leads by 78%, and in floating-point math the lead is 70.3%. The smallest advantage is in physics calculations, where the desktop part leads by 5.7%. For users who need the highest possible single-thread and multi-thread scores, the Core Ultra 9 285 is the only choice from this comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and use different foundries. The Core Ultra 9 285 is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, codenamed Arrow Lake-S, and belongs to the Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake) generation. It is fabricated on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. The Core Ultra X9 378H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, codenamed Panther Lake, and is designated as Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H). It is also on a 3 nm node, but the foundry is Intel. The desktop part has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm². The mobile part has no transistor or die size data recorded.

The core configurations differ significantly. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning it does not use simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads, also without SMT. Both processors use the same L1 cache configuration of 192 KB per core. The L2 cache differs: the desktop part has 3 MB per core, while the mobile part has 2.5 MB per core. The shared L3 cache is 36 MB on the desktop chip versus 18 MB on the mobile chip.

Memory support also separates the two. The Core Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core Ultra X9 378H supports LPDDR5X memory with a dual-channel bus and a higher recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the desktop part but not on the mobile part. The PCIe configurations differ as well. The desktop chip provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the mobile chip provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics are different: the desktop uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, and the mobile uses Arc B390.

Clock speeds favor the desktop chip. The Core Ultra 9 285 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The Core Ultra X9 378H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The release dates differ as well. The desktop part entered production as active with a release date of 2024-12-31, while the mobile part has a release date of 2026-04-03. The production status for both is listed as active.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows that the Core Ultra 9 285 wins every single head-to-head comparison. The largest margins appear in compute-heavy workloads. In PassMark integer math, the desktop chip scores 164869 versus 92603, a delta of 78%. In floating-point math, the score is 194988 versus 114500, a delta of 70.3%. Random string sorting shows a 65% advantage, with scores of 73651 and 44648. Data encryption shows a 57.3% lead at 46949 versus 29840. Data compression shows a 55.8% lead at 602121 versus 386591.

Cinebench results follow a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 versus 32553, a 50.4% lead. The single-core result in R23 is 6909 versus 4595, also a 50.4% delta. The same 50.4% delta appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core (20556 versus 13672), R20 single-core (2901 versus 1929), R15 multi-core (4933 versus 3281), and R15 single-core (696 versus 462). The consistency of this figure suggests a uniform architectural advantage across the Cinebench suite.

PassMark multi-thread results show a 47.8% lead for the desktop part, with scores of 56602 versus 38298. Extended instructions show a 44.8% lead at 45357 versus 31315. Find prime numbers shows a 28.6% lead at 459 versus 357. Single-thread performance is closer. The PassMark single-thread score is 4881 versus 4453, a 9.6% margin. The physics test shows the smallest gap at 5.7%, with scores of 3598 versus 3404.

The average benchmark score difference is substantial. The Core Ultra 9 285 averages 75488, while the Core Ultra X9 378H averages 47468. The nearest rivals for the desktop chip include the AMD EPYC 8224P with an average score of 75582 and a delta of -0.1%, plus the AMD EPYC 4545P at 75373 with a delta of 0.2%. The mobile chip's rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 at 47527 with a delta of -0.1% and the Intel Core i7-13700KF at 47330 with a delta of 0.3%. These rival positions confirm that each processor sits within a tight competitive cluster, but the two clusters are far apart.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The core count is 24 versus 16. The thread count is 24 versus 16. Base clocks are 2.50 GHz versus 2.00 GHz. Boost clocks are 5.60 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. The TDP is 65 W versus 25 W. The socket is Intel Socket 1851 versus Intel BGA 2540. The codename differs: Arrow Lake-S versus Panther Lake. The generation is Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake) versus Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H). The foundry is TSMC versus Intel. Transistor count is 17,800 million for the desktop part, with no data for the mobile part. Die size is 243 mm² for the desktop part, with no data for the mobile part.

L2 cache is 3 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core. L3 cache is 36 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support is DDR5 versus LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s. ECC memory support is true versus false. PCIe lanes are 20 versus 4, both Gen 5 from the CPU. Integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU versus Arc B390. Market segment is Desktop versus Mobile. Release dates are 2024-12-31 versus 2026-04-03. Launch MSRP is $579 for the desktop part, with none recorded for the mobile part. The part number is SRQD4 versus unknown. The architecture field is Arrow Lake for the desktop part and null for the mobile part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75488, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H has an average score of 47468.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark integer math, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 164869 versus 92603, a delta of 78%.

Q: Do both processors use the same process node?

A: Both are on a 3 nm process node, but the Core Ultra 9 285 uses TSMC as the foundry, while the Core Ultra X9 378H uses Intel.

Q: What is the smallest performance advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285?

A: The smallest advantage is in PassMark physics, where the desktop chip scores 3598 versus 3404, a delta of 5.7%.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H does not.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s with DDR5 support. The Core Ultra X9 378H has a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s with LPDDR5X support.