Intel Core Ultra 9 285 vs Intel Processor 300 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and Intel Processor 300 occupy vastly different positions in the database, and the recorded measurements reflect that gap clearly. The Core Ultra 9 285 delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 48,945, while its single-core score in the same test reaches 6,909. The Processor 300 has no benchmark entries in the database, so direct numerical comparison is impossible. However, the percentile data places the Core Ultra 9 285 in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the Processor 300 sits at the 50th percentile. That percentile gap alone indicates a substantial performance separation.

The Core Ultra 9 285 shows consistent strength across the Passmark suite. Its multi-thread score is 56,602, and its single-thread score is 4,881. Data compression throughput reaches 602,121, while data encryption processes 46,949 operations. Floating point math completes at 194,988, and integer math at 164,869. Extended instructions score 45,357, random string sorting reaches 73,651, and prime number finding completes at 459. Physics simulation scores 3,598. The average benchmark score across all tests is 75,488.

The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 9 285 provide context. The AMD EPYC 8224P posts an average score of 75,582, which is 0.1% higher. The AMD EPYC 4545P scores 75,373, putting the Core Ultra 9 285 ahead by 0.2%. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D reaches 75,716, placing it 0.3% above the Intel part. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 scores 75,738, also 0.3% higher. These deltas are marginal, showing the Core Ultra 9 285 trades blows with high-end server and workstation parts within a fraction of a percent.

For the Processor 300, the absence of benchmark data means no wins can be recorded in any category. The Core Ultra 9 285 holds all measurable wins by default, with a 24-core versus 2-core configuration advantage that the data reflects through its 95th percentile ranking versus the 50th percentile ranking.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and manufacturing approaches. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake-S architecture, built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. It contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Processor 300 uses Raptor Lake-S architecture, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process with a 163 mm² die size. Transistor count for the Processor 300 is not recorded in the database.

Core and thread counts differ dramatically. The Core Ultra 9 285 provides 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning no hyper-threading is enabled. The Processor 300 provides 2 cores and 4 threads, indicating hyper-threading is active. Base clocks are 2.50 GHz for the Core Ultra 9 285 versus 3.90 GHz for the Processor 300. The Core Ultra 9 285 boosts to 5.60 GHz, while no boost clock is recorded for the Processor 300.

Cache hierarchies are distinct. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Processor 300 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 285's total L3 is six times larger.

Memory support differs as well. The Core Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 only, with dual-channel memory bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Processor 300 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but no memory bandwidth figure is recorded. ECC memory is supported on the Core Ultra 9 285 but not on the Processor 300. PCIe connectivity shows 20 lanes on the Core Ultra 9 285 versus 16 lanes on the Processor 300, both Gen 5.

Integrated graphics are different tiers. The Core Ultra 9 285 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the Processor 300 includes UHD Graphics 710. Both processors are desktop parts, both are actively in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Thermal design power is 65 watts for the Core Ultra 9 285 and 46 watts for the Processor 300. Sockets are incompatible: the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851, while the Processor 300 uses Intel Socket 1700. Release dates show the Processor 300 launched earlier, in January 2024, with the Core Ultra 9 285 following in December 2024. Launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 9 285 is $579. The Processor 300 has a launch MSRP of $82.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Core Ultra 9 285 delivers 24 cores, a 5.60 GHz boost clock, 36 MB of L3 cache, and a 95th percentile ranking. The Processor 300 provides 2 cores, a 3.90 GHz base clock with no boost recorded, 6 MB of L3 cache, and a 50th percentile ranking. Buyers requiring high multi-threaded throughput should select the Core Ultra 9 285, as its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 48,945 and Passmark multi-thread score of 56,602 demonstrate capabilities the Processor 300 cannot match on paper.

The Processor 300 serves a different role. Its 46 watt TDP and dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 support make it suitable for basic desktop workloads, but the database contains no benchmark scores for it, so no quantitative performance validation exists. The Core Ultra 9 285's nearest rivals show it competes within 0.3% of AMD EPYC server processors and Ryzen 7 PRO parts, placing it in the upper echelon of desktop CPUs.

Socket selection is a decisive factor. The Core Ultra 9 285 requires Intel Socket 1851, while the Processor 300 uses Intel Socket 1700. Platform choice will dictate which processor is viable. ECC memory support on the Core Ultra 9 285 adds a reliability feature absent on the Processor 300. The integrated graphics difference, 64 execution units versus UHD Graphics 710, gives the Core Ultra 9 285 a stronger iGPU for light graphical tasks.

FAQ

Q: How does the Core Ultra 9 285 compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 averages 75,488 across all tests. The AMD EPYC 8224P scores 75,582, 0.1% higher. The AMD EPYC 4545P scores 75,373, 0.2% lower. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D scores 75,716, 0.3% higher. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 scores 75,738, 0.3% higher.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each processor?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Processor 300 has 2 cores and 4 threads. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory. The Processor 300 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 only, with dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Processor 300 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, but no bandwidth figure is recorded.

Q: What are the process nodes and foundries for these chips?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 uses a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Processor 300 uses a 10 nm process at Intel. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Processor 300 has no recorded transistor count on a 163 mm² die.

Q: What is the launch MSRP for each processor?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has a launch MSRP of $579. The Processor 300 has a launch MSRP of $82.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 285 wins in every benchmark category with recorded data. Its Cinebench R15 multi-core score is 4,933, and single-core is 696. R20 multi-core reaches 20,556, and single-core reaches 2,901. R23 multi-core is 48,945, and single-core is 6,909. Passmark results show multi-thread at 56,602, single-thread at 4,881, data compression at 602,121, data encryption at 46,949, extended instructions at 45,357, floating point math at 194,988, integer math at 164,869, prime numbers at 459, random string sorting at 73,651, and physics at 3,598.

The Processor 300 has no benchmark entries, so it cannot claim any measured win. Its advantages are structural rather than performance-based. The 46 watt TDP is lower than the Core Ultra 9 285's 65 watts. The 3.90 GHz base clock is higher than the 2.50 GHz base clock of the Core Ultra 9 285. The Processor 300 supports DDR4 memory, which the Core Ultra 9 285 does not, potentially enabling lower-cost platforms. The Socket 1700 compatibility may suit existing motherboard owners, while the Core Ultra 9 285 requires the newer Socket 1851.

For workloads involving heavy multi-threading, content creation, data compression, or encryption, the Core Ultra 9 285 is the only option with recorded evidence. Its 95th percentile ranking across all CPUs, combined with benchmark scores that rival AMD EPYC server parts within 0.3%, confirms its position at the top of the desktop lineup. The Processor 300's 50th percentile ranking places it at the median, but without benchmark data, its real-world performance remains unquantified in the database.

The integrated graphics difference matters for systems without discrete GPUs. The Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units in the Core Ultra 9 285 provides significantly more graphical horsepower than the UHD Graphics 710 in the Processor 300. For basic display output and light media acceleration, both work, but the Core Ultra 9 285 offers more headroom.

Platform longevity favors the Core Ultra 9 285. The Arrow Lake architecture on Socket 1851 represents a newer generation with DDR5-only memory, Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes, and ECC support. The Raptor Lake architecture on Socket 1700 supports older DDR4 memory alongside DDR5, has 16 Gen 5 lanes, and lacks ECC. Users building new systems with forward-looking requirements should consider the Core Ultra 9 285's platform advantages. Users seeking minimal power draw and legacy memory compatibility may prefer the Processor 300's simpler configuration.