Intel Core Ultra 9 285 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-94-100 Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is a desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake architecture, while the Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-94-100 is a mobile part from the Glymur codename. The database records no overlapping benchmark scores for these two CPUs, as the Qualcomm part has no entries in our measurements, leaving its average benchmark score at zero. The Intel chip, by contrast, has a substantial set of recorded results across Cinebench and Passmark tests, with an average benchmark score of 75,488 and a percentile ranking of 95 among all CPUs. The Qualcomm part sits at the 50th percentile with no recorded data. This analysis relies strictly on the recorded specifications and the Intel benchmark results to compare the two.

FAQ

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-94-100 has 18 cores and 18 threads. Both parts lack hyper-threading or simultaneous multi-threading, so thread counts equal core counts.

Q: What is the boost clock speed for each?

A: The Intel part boosts to 5.60 GHz from a base clock of 2.50 GHz. The Qualcomm part has a base clock of 4.45 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-94-100 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What memory types do these CPUs support?

A: The Intel processor supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and a recorded bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Qualcomm processor supports LPDDR5X memory with a triple-channel bus and a recorded bandwidth of 228.6 GB/s.

Q: What is the process node and foundry for each?

A: Both processors are manufactured on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. The Intel die size is 243 mm², while the Qualcomm die size is 220 mm².

Q: Does the database have any benchmark results for the Qualcomm part?

A: No. The recorded data shows an empty benchmark array for the Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-94-100, with an average benchmark score of zero and no nearest rivals listed. All comparative analysis must come from the Intel part’s recorded scores and specification differences.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge fundamentally in their target platforms and internal designs. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, using the Arrow Lake architecture with the codename Arrow Lake-S. It is a desktop part, fitting the Intel Socket 1851. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-94-100 uses the Glymur codename and belongs to the Snapdragon X2 (Elite) generation. It is a mobile processor, mounted on the Qualcomm BGA 2343 socket.

Both are fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ sharply. The Intel chip contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Qualcomm chip has no recorded transistor count, but its die size is 220 mm², slightly smaller than the Intel die.

Cache hierarchies reveal different design philosophies. The Intel part has an L1 cache of 192 KB per core, an L2 cache of 3 MB per core, and a shared L3 cache of 36 MB. The Qualcomm part has a larger L1 at 288 KB per core, a much larger L2 at 16 MB per module, but a smaller shared L3 at only 9 MB. The Qualcomm design leans on per-module L2 capacity, while Intel allocates more shared L3.

Memory support shows a major architectural split. The Intel processor uses DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus and a recorded bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Qualcomm processor uses LPDDR5X with a triple-channel bus and a recorded bandwidth of 228.6 GB/s, which is more than double the Intel bandwidth. ECC memory is supported only on the Intel side, a feature absent from the Qualcomm part.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Intel chip provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU only. The Qualcomm chip provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes from the CPU only. Both are Gen 5, but Intel offers more lanes.

Integrated graphics separate the two further. The Intel part carries Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Qualcomm part carries Adreno X2-90 graphics. The database lists no performance metrics for either iGPU, so only the presence and naming differ.

Production status for both is active. The Intel part was released on 2024-12-31, while the Qualcomm part has a later release date of 2026-04-05. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $579. The Qualcomm part has no recorded launch price. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries between these two processors, and the Qualcomm part has an empty benchmark array. Therefore, all numerical comparisons rely on the Intel Core Ultra 9 285’s recorded scores, interpreted against its nearest rivals from the database.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel part scores 4,933 points. In single-core, it scores 696 points. The multi-core score is roughly seven times the single-core score, which is consistent with a 24-thread part working across heavily threaded workloads. The nearest rival in the database, the AMD EPYC 8224P, has an average score of 75,582, which is 0.1% higher than the Intel average of 75,488. The AMD EPYC 4545P sits 0.2% lower in average score at 75,373. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 both have average scores around 75,716 and 75,738, respectively, each about 0.3% above the Intel average.

Cinebench R20 results show a multi-core score of 20,556 and a single-core score of 2,901. The single-core score is a strong indicator of per-thread performance, and the multi-core score scales to about seven times that, again reflecting the 24-thread configuration. Cinebench R23 records a multi-core score of 48,945 and a single-core score of 6,909. The R23 multi-core score is the highest multi-threaded result in the Cinebench suite for this chip.

Passmark tests give a broader view. The Intel part scores 602,121 in data compression, 46,949 in data encryption, and 45,357 in extended instructions. In find prime numbers, it scores 459. Floating point math scores 194,988, while integer math scores 164,869. The multithread score is 56,602, and the physics score is 3,598. Random string sorting scores 73,651. Single-thread performance in Passmark is recorded as 4,881, appearing twice in the data with the same value.

The average benchmark score for the Intel part is 75,488, which places it in the 95th percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are all AMD EPYC or Ryzen PRO parts, with score deltas of no more than 0.3% in either direction. This indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 performs in a tightly clustered band with those AMD server and workstation processors.

Since the Qualcomm part has no benchmarks, its wins column is zero, and its average benchmark score is zero. The Intel part has 17 recorded benchmark entries, all with positive scores. The comparison is therefore one-sided in terms of measured data, but the specification differences still allow a practical analysis.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification category listed in the database.

Core and thread counts: Intel has 24 cores and 24 threads. Qualcomm has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Intel part has 33% more cores.

Clock speeds: Intel base clock is 2.50 GHz, boost clock is 5.60 GHz. Qualcomm base clock is 4.45 GHz, boost clock is 4.70 GHz. The Qualcomm base clock is much higher, but the Intel boost clock is nearly 1 GHz higher.

Thermal design power: Intel has a TDP of 65 watts. Qualcomm has no recorded TDP value.

Socket: Intel uses Intel Socket 1851. Qualcomm uses Qualcomm BGA 2343.

Architecture and codename: Intel uses Arrow Lake with codename Arrow Lake-S. Qualcomm has no recorded architecture, but codename Glymur.

Generation: Intel is Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake). Qualcomm is Snapdragon X2 (Elite).

Process node and foundry: Both are 3 nm at TSMC.

Transistors: Intel has 17,800 million. Qualcomm has no recorded value.

Die size: Intel is 243 mm². Qualcomm is 220 mm².

Cache: Intel L1 is 192 KB per core, L2 is 3 MB per core, L3 is 36 MB shared. Qualcomm L1 is 288 KB per core, L2 is 16 MB per module, L3 is 9 MB shared.

Memory support: Intel supports DDR5, dual-channel, 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, ECC true. Qualcomm supports LPDDR5X, triple-channel, 228.6 GB/s bandwidth, ECC false.

PCIe: Intel has Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Qualcomm has Gen 5 with 12 lanes.

Integrated graphics: Intel has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Qualcomm has Adreno X2-90.

Market segment: Intel is Desktop. Qualcomm is Mobile.

Release date: Intel is 2024-12-31. Qualcomm is 2026-04-05.

Launch MSRP: Intel has $579. Qualcomm has none.

Multiplier unlocked: Both are false.

Part number: Intel is SRQD4. Qualcomm is X2E94100.

Where Each One Wins

Based on recorded data, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins in every measurable benchmark category, because the Qualcomm part has no recorded scores. The Intel chip demonstrates strong multi-threaded capability with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 48,945, and robust single-thread performance with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 6,909. Passmark integer math at 164,869 and floating point math at 194,988 show balanced compute throughput.

For use cases requiring heavy parallel processing, such as rendering, data compression, or encryption, the Intel part has concrete scores. Data compression at 602,121 and data encryption at 46,949 are recorded strengths. The multithread Passmark score of 56,602 further confirms its suitability for workloads that scale across many threads.

The Qualcomm part wins on paper in memory bandwidth. Its triple-channel LPDDR5X bus provides 228.6 GB/s, which is more than double the Intel’s 102.4 GB/s. For memory-bound mobile workloads, that bandwidth advantage could matter, but no benchmark data confirms any real-world benefit. The Qualcomm part also has a higher base clock at 4.45 GHz, but its boost clock of 4.70 GHz is lower than the Intel boost of 5.60 GHz.

The Intel part wins on PCIe lane count with 20 lanes versus 12 lanes, which supports more expansion devices. It also wins on ECC memory support, a feature absent on the Qualcomm side. The Intel part has a larger shared L3 cache at 36 MB versus 9 MB, which benefits workloads with large working sets. The Qualcomm part has a larger per-core L1 and per-module L2, but the total L2 capacity is not recorded in aggregate.

The Qualcomm part is a mobile processor, so it likely fits in low-power systems, but the database records no TDP or power consumption numbers to confirm efficiency. Its release date is later, and it has no launch MSRP in the data.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear split. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is a fully measured desktop processor with 17 benchmark scores, an average score of 75,488, and a 95th percentile ranking. Its nearest rivals are AMD EPYC and Ryzen PRO parts, all within 0.3% of its average score, which places it in professional desktop or entry workstation territory. It has 24 cores, a 5.60 GHz boost clock, 36 MB of L3 cache, ECC support, and 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. Its launch MSRP is $579.

The Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-94-100 has no benchmarks, no average score, and no rivals. It is a mobile part with 18 cores, a 4.70 GHz boost clock, 9 MB of L3 cache, 228.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 12 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. Its release date is later, and it has no recorded price.

For desktop workloads where multi-threaded performance is critical, the Intel part has the data to back it up. Cinebench R23 multi-core at 48,945 and Passmark multithread at 56,602 are strong indicators. For single-thread responsiveness, the 5.60 GHz boost clock and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 6,909 support that claim.

The Qualcomm part cannot be evaluated on performance due to missing data. Its specification sheet suggests a memory-bandwidth advantage and a higher base clock, but without benchmark results, no performance conclusion is possible. The Intel part is the only one with verified scores, so any builder choosing between these two should rely on the Intel measurements. The Qualcomm part remains an unmeasured mobile option, suitable only for systems that require its specific socket, memory type, or integrated graphics, none of which have recorded performance data. The verdict favors the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 based on the available evidence.