Intel Core Ultra 9 285 vs Intel Xeon 6517P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall win for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285, which takes 14 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Intel Xeon 6517P manages only 3 wins, but those wins are concentrated in workloads where its server-oriented design gives it a clear edge.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Core Ultra 9 285 wins every single test by a consistent margin. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 4933 against the Xeon's 4268, a 15.6% advantage. The single-core R15 test tells the same story: 696 versus 602, again a 15.6% delta. Moving to R20, the Core Ultra 9 285 posts 20556 multicore and 2901 single-core, while the Xeon 6517P manages 17787 and 2511 respectively, with the same 15.6% and 15.5% gaps. Cinebench R23 follows the pattern: 48945 versus 42352 in multicore and 6909 versus 5979 in single-core, both showing a 15.6% lead for the desktop part.

The Passmark results are where the two chips diverge more dramatically. The Core Ultra 9 285 wins Passmark single-thread with 4881 versus 3311, a massive 47.4% advantage. Floating point math also favors the Core Ultra 9 285 heavily: 194988 versus 127497, a 52.9% gap. Data encryption shows a 45% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285 (46949 versus 32385), and find prime numbers goes to the desktop chip by 37% (459 versus 335). The multithread Passmark score is 56602 for the Core Ultra 9 285 versus 49786 for the Xeon, a 13.7% win. Integer math is close at 164869 versus 162671, a narrow 1.4% margin. Random string sorting goes to the Core Ultra 9 285 by 9.1% (73651 versus 67480).

The Xeon 6517P's three wins are worth examining closely. Passmark physics is its largest victory: 4452 versus 3598, a 19.2% lead. Data compression shows 653338 versus 602121, a 7.8% edge for the Xeon. Extended instructions go to the server chip by 12.6% (51891 versus 45357). These wins align with the Xeon's role: physics simulation often scales with memory bandwidth and cache structure, and compression workloads can benefit from the larger shared L3 cache.

The Verdict

The data points to two very different design philosophies. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285, with its 24 cores and 24 threads, delivers consistently higher raw performance across the majority of tested workloads. Its average benchmark score of 75488 places it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The nearest rivals to the Core Ultra 9 285 are the AMD EPYC 8224P (75582, a 0.1% difference), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D (75716, 0.3% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 (75738, 0.3% behind). It sits essentially at parity with those parts, within a 0.3% band.

The Intel Xeon 6517P, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 72350 and sits in the 94th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6724P (72396, 0.1% ahead), the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF (71910, 0.6% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX (71797, 0.8% behind). The Xeon is competitive within its own server peer group but trails the Core Ultra 9 285 by roughly 4.3% in average score.

For a user prioritizing single-thread responsiveness, floating-point throughput, or encryption performance, the Core Ultra 9 285 is the clear pick. Its single-thread lead of 47.4% in Passmark and its 52.9% advantage in floating-point math are not marginal differences; they represent fundamental architectural strengths. For workloads centered on physics simulation or data compression, the Xeon 6517P offers measurable advantages, 19.2% and 7.8% respectively. The choice depends entirely on which workload profile matters more.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 285 dominates in general-purpose and desktop-oriented tasks. Its 15.6% lead across every Cinebench test, both single-core and multi-core, indicates strong all-around CPU throughput. The 47.4% single-thread Passmark advantage makes it the better option for latency-sensitive applications, lightly threaded software, or any task where a single core must carry the load. The 52.9% lead in floating-point math suggests superiority in scientific computing, 3D rendering, and simulation workloads that rely on heavy FPU usage. The 45% encryption win points to better performance in cryptographic operations and secure data handling. The 37% find-prime-numbers advantage and the 13.7% multithread win reinforce the Core Ultra 9 285 as the faster chip in most compute-heavy scenarios.

The Xeon 6517P wins where its server design pays off. The 19.2% lead in Passmark physics suggests better performance in physics engines used in engineering simulation or game physics. The 7.8% data compression win indicates an edge in archiving, database storage, or any workload that involves significant data packing and unpacking. The 12.6% extended instructions lead points to better execution of specialized instruction sets, which could benefit certain enterprise applications or custom code paths.

Architecturally, the Xeon 6517P compensates for lower core counts with a much larger cache. Its 72 MB shared L3 cache is double the Core Ultra 9 285's 36 MB. This larger cache likely explains its wins in data compression and physics, where repeated access to working sets can benefit from more on-die storage. The Core Ultra 9 285 counters with higher clock speeds and a 3 nm TSMC process node versus the Xeon's 5 nm Intel node, which explains its single-thread and floating-point dominance.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285. In Passmark single-thread, it scores 4881 versus the Xeon 6517P's 3311, a 47.4% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 6909 versus 5979, a 15.6% lead.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core workloads?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 leads in Cinebench R23 multicore with 48945 versus 42352, a 15.6% margin. Passmark multithread also favors the Core Ultra 9 285 at 56602 versus 49786, a 13.7% difference.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Xeon 6517P wins?

A: Yes, three. It wins Passmark physics by 19.2% (4452 versus 3598), data compression by 7.8% (653338 versus 602121), and extended instructions by 12.6% (51891 versus 45357).

Q: What is the core and thread configuration for each?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Xeon 6517P has 16 cores and 32 threads, meaning the Xeon supports hyper-threading while the Core Ultra 9 285 does not.

Q: How do the cache sizes differ?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Xeon 6517P has 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 72 MB shared L3.

Q: Which CPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Xeon 6517P, with 409.6 GB/s from its eight-channel memory bus. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 102.4 GB/s from a dual-channel bus.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design lineages. The Core Ultra 9 285 is built on the Arrow Lake architecture, released in December 2024, using a 3 nm process from TSMC with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Xeon 6517P uses the Granite Rapids architecture, released in February 2025, on Intel's own 5 nm process. The Core Ultra 9 285 targets the desktop segment with a socket 1851, while the Xeon 6517P is a server and workstation part on socket 4710.

The core designs differ significantly. The Core Ultra 9 285 packs 24 cores with no hyper-threading, giving it 24 threads. The Xeon 6517P has 16 cores but supports 32 threads through simultaneous multithreading. Despite having fewer physical cores, the Xeon's thread count equals the Core Ultra 9 285's core count in terms of logical processors. The Xeon compensates for lower per-core performance with a larger shared L3 cache of 72 MB, exactly double the Core Ultra 9 285's 36 MB. The Core Ultra 9 285 has larger per-core caches though: 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core, versus 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core for the Xeon.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses a dual-channel DDR5 bus delivering 102.4 GB/s. The Xeon 6517P uses an eight-channel memory bus delivering 409.6 GB/s, four times the bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core Ultra 9 285 provides 20 Gen 5 lanes, while the Xeon 6517P provides 88 Gen 5 lanes, reflecting its server role with more expansion capacity.

The Core Ultra 9 285 includes integrated graphics, specifically Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Xeon 6517P has no integrated graphics. Clock speeds favor the desktop chip: the Core Ultra 9 285 runs at 2.50 GHz base and 5.60 GHz boost, versus 3.20 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost for the Xeon. The Xeon has a higher base clock but a much lower boost ceiling. Power consumption also differs, with the Core Ultra 9 285 rated at 65 W TDP and the Xeon at 190 W TDP, reflecting the server part's higher power envelope.

Specification Differences

The Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Xeon 6517P has 16 cores and 32 threads. Base clocks are 2.50 GHz for the Core Ultra 9 285 and 3.20 GHz for the Xeon. Boost clocks are 5.60 GHz versus 4.20 GHz respectively. The TDP is 65 W for the Core Ultra 9 285 and 190 W for the Xeon 6517P.

Sockets differ: the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851, the Xeon 6517P uses Intel Socket 4710. The process nodes are 3 nm (TSMC) for the Core Ultra 9 285 and 5 nm (Intel) for the Xeon. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size; the Xeon's transistor count and die size are not recorded.

Cache configurations differ in both size and distribution. The Core Ultra 9 285 offers 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Xeon 6517P offers 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 72 MB shared L3.

Memory bandwidth is a major differentiator: 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 9 285 versus 409.6 GB/s for the Xeon. The memory bus is dual-channel for the desktop chip and eight-channel for the server chip. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory.

PCIe lanes differ substantially: 20 Gen 5 lanes for the Core Ultra 9 285 versus 88 Gen 5 lanes for the Xeon 6517P. The Core Ultra 9 285 includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units; the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The market segments are Desktop for the Core Ultra 9 285 and Server/Workstation for the Xeon 6517P. Both are active production parts, with the Core Ultra 9 285 released in December 2024 and the Xeon 6517P in February 2025.