Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H represent two distinct approaches to mobile computing within Intel’s Core Ultra lineup. The 285HX is a high-core-count part from the Arrow Lake-HX generation, while the 358H is a leaner Panther Lake-H design. Benchmark data from the database shows a decisive performance gap across every recorded workload, with the 285HX winning all 17 head-to-head comparisons. The average benchmark score for the 285HX is 76155, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the 358H averages 40967 and sits in the 87th percentile. This separation is not marginal; it reflects fundamental differences in core counts, clocks, and thermal envelopes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking disparities appear in multi-threaded and throughput-heavy tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 285HX scores 36429.5 against 18747 for the 358H, a delta of 94.3%. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a similar pattern: 20236 versus 12011, a 68.5% advantage. The R15 multi-core test delivers 5656.5 against 3027, a 86.9% margin. These results indicate that the 285HX scales far better when all cores are engaged, which is expected given its 24 cores and 24 threads versus 16 cores and 16 threads for the 358H.

Single-core performance is closer but still favors the 285HX. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 285HX scores 2187.5 versus 2080, a 5.2% lead. The R15 single-core test shows 323.5 against 301.5, a 7.3% difference. Passmark single-thread results are 4618 versus 4124, a 12% gap. These margins are modest compared to the multi-core deltas, indicating that the 358H’s Panther Lake architecture keeps per-core efficiency competitive, but the 285HX’s higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz versus 4.80 GHz helps it retain the edge.

Throughput-oriented Passmark tests amplify the multi-core advantage. Data compression shows 631885 for the 285HX versus 332508 for the 358H, a 90% delta. Integer math delivers 155076 versus 83147, an 86.5% lead. Floating point math records 194998 against 103842, a 87.8% margin. Extended instructions score 49148 versus 27274, an 80.2% difference. Random string sorting shows 77196 versus 40357, a 91.3% gap. These results confirm that the 285HX’s additional cores and higher sustained clocks translate directly into faster completion of parallel workloads.

Encryption and prime-number tests follow the same trend. Data encryption scores 48567 versus 26046, an 86.5% delta. Find prime numbers records 460 versus 337, a 36.5% lead, which is the smallest relative margin among the multi-core tests but still a clear victory. Passmark multi-thread shows 56902 versus 33802, a 68.3% difference. Physics simulation, a lighter multi-core test, produces 3476 versus 3021, a 15.1% gap. Across all 17 recorded benchmarks, the 285HX wins every single comparison, with deltas ranging from 5.2% in single-core to 94.3% in multi-core.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX wins every recorded benchmark. There is no workload in the database where the 358H takes the lead. The closest contest is single-core performance, where the 285HX’s advantage shrinks to 5.2% in Cinebench R23 and 7.3% in R15. This suggests that for lightly threaded tasks such as basic responsiveness or legacy applications, the two processors are nearly interchangeable. The 358H’s single-thread scores of 2080 in R23 and 4124 in Passmark are respectable, and its 4.80 GHz boost clock allows it to keep pace in short, single-core bursts.

The 285HX dominates in every multi-core and throughput scenario. Its 24 cores and 24 threads provide a 50% core-count advantage over the 358H’s 16 cores and 16 threads. This translates into a 94.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, meaning the 285HX completes heavily threaded rendering tasks in roughly half the time. Data compression, integer math, floating point math, and extended instruction workloads all show deltas above 80%, confirming that the 285HX is the clear choice for content creation, scientific computation, or any workload that saturates all available cores.

The 358H’s strengths lie outside the measured benchmarks. It operates at a lower TDP of 25 watts versus 55 watts for the 285HX, which means it generates less heat and draws less power in sustained workloads. Its integrated Arc B390 graphics and 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, higher than the 285HX’s 102.4 GB/s, suggest it is better suited for thin-and-light designs where battery life and portability take precedence over raw processing throughput. However, based strictly on the recorded CPU benchmarks, the 358H does not win a single test.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX averages 76155, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H averages 40967. The 285HX also ranks in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 87th percentile for the 358H.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: The largest delta is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the 285HX scores 36429.5 versus 18747 for the 358H, a 94.3% difference. Other multi-core tests show deltas of 86.9% in R15, 68.5% in R20, and 90% in Passmark data compression.

Q: Is the single-core performance similar between the two?

A: Single-core scores are closer but still favor the 285HX. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 285HX leads by 5.2% (2187.5 versus 2080). Passmark single-thread shows a 12% gap (4618 versus 4124).

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The 285HX boosts to 5.50 GHz, while the 358H boosts to 4.80 GHz. The base clocks are 2.80 GHz and 1.90 GHz, respectively.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The 285HX supports ECC memory, while the 358H does not. Both support dual-channel memory, but the 358H uses LPDDR5X while the 285HX uses DDR5.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The 285HX has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.80 GHz for the 285HX and 1.90 GHz for the 358H. Boost clocks are 5.50 GHz and 4.80 GHz, respectively. The thermal design power is 55 watts for the 285HX and 25 watts for the 358H.

The sockets differ as well: the 285HX uses Intel BGA 2114, while the 358H uses Intel BGA 2540. The 358H’s multiplier is locked, whereas the 285HX has an unlocked multiplier. Memory support is DDR5 for the 285HX and LPDDR5X for the 358H. Memory bandwidth is higher for the 358H at 153.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s for the 285HX. ECC memory is supported only by the 285HX.

PCIe lanes differ significantly: the 285HX provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 358H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics also differ, with the 285HX featuring Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU and the 358H featuring Arc B390. The release dates are 2025-01-12 for the 285HX and 2026-01-04 for the 358H. Part numbers are SRVFJ for the 285HX and SA4RAQ9ET for the 358H.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is pronounced. The 285HX is based on Arrow Lake, specifically Arrow Lake-HX, from the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. The 358H uses the Panther Lake codename, specifically Panther Lake-H, from the Core Ultra Series 3 generation. Both are manufactured on a 3 nm process, but the foundries differ: TSMC produces the 285HX, while Intel produces the 358H.

Transistor counts and die sizes are only recorded for the 285HX, which has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. No such data exists for the 358H in the database. Cache configurations are partially shared: both have 192 KB L1 per core and 3 MB L2 per core. The L3 cache, however, is 36 MB shared for the 285HX versus 18 MB shared for the 358H.

The integrated graphics represent a full generation shift. The 285HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, while the 358H uses Arc B390. The 358H’s memory interface is built for LPDDR5X, which explains its higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s despite having half the cores. The 285HX’s DDR5 support and lower bandwidth indicate a design focused on sustained multi-core throughput rather than memory density or low power. The 358H’s 25-watt TDP and locked multiplier point to a more constrained power envelope, suited for systems where thermal limits are tight. The 285HX’s 55-watt TDP and unlocked multiplier allow for higher sustained performance but require more robust cooling and power delivery.