Intel Core Ultra 9 285 vs Intel Processor N150 Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the dominant part in this comparison, winning all four recorded head-to-head benchmarks against the Intel Processor N150. The data shows a complete performance separation: the Core Ultra 9 285 sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the N150 sits in the 28th percentile. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 9 285 is 75,488, compared to 1,025 for the N150, a gap of over 73 times. The Core Ultra 9 285 targets desktop workloads requiring high multi-threaded throughput, while the N150 is a 6 W mobile processor built for basic portable tasks. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 9 285 are AMD EPYC and Ryzen PRO parts with average scores within 0.3% of its own, indicating it competes at the upper tier of server and workstation silicon. The N150's nearest rivals are older desktop and mobile processors, including the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T and Intel Core i3-4340, with scores within 0.2%. The Core Ultra 9 285 is the clear choice for content creation, compilation, or any threaded workload. The N150 is suitable only for lightweight, low-power mobile systems where energy consumption is the primary concern.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the Intel manufacturer but diverge completely in design. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake-S architecture, built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. It belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation, codenamed Arrow Lake-S, and uses the Intel Socket 1851. The N150 uses the Twin Lake architecture, built on a 10 nm process at Intel, and uses the Intel BGA 1264 socket. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The core count difference alone explains most of the performance gap.

Cache hierarchies are also fundamentally different. The Core Ultra 9 285 features 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The N150 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 285 offers dramatically more cache at every level, which supports its higher thread throughput.

Memory support differs as well. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. The N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, but only on a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. The Core Ultra 9 285 provides nearly three times the memory bandwidth, which matters for memory-bound workloads. The N150's integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core Ultra 9 285 also has PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, versus PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes on the N150.

Clock speeds show a similar split. The Core Ultra 9 285 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The N150 has a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost of 3.60 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 285's boost clock is 2 GHz higher, and its base clock is far above the N150's extremely low idle-oriented base.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 285 wins every recorded benchmark category. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 4,933 versus 422.5, a delta of 1067.6%. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 696 versus 153.15, a delta of 354.5%. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 48,945 versus 2,590.5, a delta of 1789.4%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 6,909 versus 935, a delta of 638.9%. The Core Ultra 9 285 also has a broader benchmark suite recorded: PassMark tests for data compression (602,121), data encryption (46,949), extended instructions (45,357), prime numbers (459), floating point math (194,988), integer math (164,869), multithread (56,602), physics (3,598), random string sorting (73,651), and single-thread (4,881). The N150 has no recorded PassMark results, so no comparison is possible there.

The N150's only advantage is power consumption. Its TDP is 6 W, versus 65 W for the Core Ultra 9 285. That makes it suitable for fanless or passively cooled mobile designs where battery life and heat are critical. It also has a much lower base clock of 0.10 GHz, which allows it to idle at very low energy draw. The N150's market segment is Mobile, while the Core Ultra 9 285 is Desktop.

For any performance-oriented task, the Core Ultra 9 285 is the only option. For ultra-low-power embedded or portable applications where the workload is minimal, the N150 can serve. The benchmark data does not show any workload where the N150 outperforms the Core Ultra 9 285.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 versus 2,590.5 for the N150, a delta of 1789.4%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4,933 versus 422.5, a delta of 1067.6%.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 6,909 versus 935 for the N150, a delta of 638.9%. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 696 versus 153.15, a delta of 354.5%.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Processor N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What memory standards do the two processors support?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and ECC. The N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 on a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has a TDP of 65 W. The N150 has a TDP of 6 W.

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall CPU percentile ranking?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 is in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 75,488. The N150 is in the 28th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 1,025.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 across all four Cinebench tests. The largest relative win is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 versus 2,590.5 for the N150, a delta of 1789.4%. This test emphasizes sustained multi-threaded load, and the 24-core, 24-thread Arrow Lake processor overwhelms the 4-core, 4-thread Twin Lake part. The Core Ultra 9 285's 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB of L2 per core provide ample data storage for many active threads, while the N150's 6 MB shared L3 and 2 MB shared L2 are exhausted quickly.

The second-largest win is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, with a delta of 1067.6%. The Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4,933 versus 422.5. The older R15 test is less cache-sensitive than R23, but the core count advantage still dominates. The single-core tests show smaller but still massive gaps. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 6,909 versus 935, a delta of 638.9%. The boost clock difference of 5.60 GHz versus 3.60 GHz contributes significantly here, as does the newer 3 nm process node versus the 10 nm node. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 696 versus 153.15, a delta of 354.5%. This is the smallest relative gap, but it still represents a 4.5-fold advantage.

The average benchmark score reinforces the trend. The Core Ultra 9 285 averages 75,488 across its recorded tests, placing it just 0.1% behind the AMD EPYC 8224P and 0.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4545P. The N150 averages 1,025, which is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T and 0.1% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U. The Core Ultra 9 285 also shows strong PassMark results in its own database entry: 602,121 in data compression, 194,988 in floating point math, and 164,869 in integer math. The N150 has no PassMark entries, meaning the Core Ultra 9 285 is the only part with recorded data in those workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. The Core Ultra 9 285 is a 24-core, 24-thread desktop part with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The N150 is a 4-core, 4-thread mobile part with a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The TDP difference is 65 W versus 6 W. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Intel Socket 1851, while the N150 uses the Intel BGA 1264. The architecture is Arrow Lake versus Twin Lake, and the process node is 3 nm at TSMC versus 10 nm at Intel. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die; the N150 has no recorded transistor count or die size.

Cache configurations differ sharply. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The N150 has 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB shared L2, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support: the Core Ultra 9 285 uses DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. The N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 on a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. PCIe: the Core Ultra 9 285 has Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes; the N150 has Gen 3 with 9 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics: the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units; the N150 uses UHD Graphics 730.

Release dates are close: the Core Ultra 9 285 launched on 2024-12-31, and the N150 launched on 2024-11-19. The Core Ultra 9 285 has a recorded launch MSRP of $579; the N150 has no launch MSRP recorded. Both processors have locked multipliers. The Core Ultra 9 285's part number is SRQD4, and the N150's is SRPNR. The Core Ultra 9 285 is in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the N150 is in the 28th percentile. The Core Ultra 9 285's nearest rivals are AMD EPYC 8224P (0.1% behind), AMD EPYC 4545P (0.2% ahead), AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D (0.3% behind), and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 (0.3% behind). The N150's nearest rivals are AMD Phenom II X6 1075T (0.1% ahead), Intel Core i3-4340 (0.1% behind), AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U (0.1% ahead), and Intel Core i7-5650U (0.2% behind).