Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data divides these two mobile processors into clearly distinct roles. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX wins 15 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins 2. The Ultra 9 285HX carries an average benchmark score of 76155, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The Ultra X7 368H records an average of 40518, placing it in the 87th percentile. The 285HX sits within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D and 0.1% below the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX in average score. The 368H lands within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H.

The 285HX is the choice for multithreaded workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 36429.5 exceeds the 368H's 28221 by 29.1%. PassMark multithread results show 56902 versus 32956, a 72.7% advantage. Data compression, encryption, extended instructions, floating point math, and integer math all favor the 285HX by margins between 43.3% and 102.7%. The 368H counters in single-core Cinebench tests. Its R15 single-core score of 401 beats 323.5 by 19.3%, and its R23 single-core score of 3984 beats 2187.5 by 45.1%. The 285HX still wins PassMark single-thread at 4618 versus 4005, a 15.3% margin.

The 285HX suits workloads that scale across many cores: rendering, compilation, data processing. The 368H suits lightly threaded tasks where per-core efficiency matters more. The 368H also demands less power with a 25 TDP against the 285HX's 55 TDP, and it uses LPDDR5X memory with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth versus the 285HX's DDR5 at 102.4 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The 285HX uses Arrow Lake, specifically Arrow Lake-HX, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The 368H uses Panther Lake, also on a 3 nm node, but manufactured at Intel. The 285HX provides 24 cores and 24 threads. The 368H provides 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither uses hyper-threading.

Cache layouts differ substantially. Both share 192 KB of L1 per core. The 285HX carries 3 MB of L2 per core and 36 MB of shared L3. The 368H carries 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 18 MB of shared L3. The 285HX therefore holds twice the last-level cache of the 368H.

Memory support splits the pair. The 285HX uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 368H uses LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus and 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on the 285HX, not on the 368H. PCIe connectivity also differs: the 285HX offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the 368H offers Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ. The 285HX pairs with Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The 368H pairs with Arc B390. The 285HX has an unlocked multiplier, the 368H does not. Sockets are incompatible: the 285HX uses Intel BGA 2114, the 368H uses Intel BGA 2540. Release dates place the 285HX on 2025-01-12 and the 368H on 2026-01-04. The 285HX part number is SRVFJ, the 368H part number is SA4R7Q9EJ.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The 285HX boosts to 5.50 GHz. The 368H boosts to 5.00 GHz. The 285HX also has a higher base clock at 2.80 GHz versus 2.00 GHz.

Q: Which processor has faster memory bandwidth?

A: The 368H records 153.6 GB/s with LPDDR5X. The 285HX records 102.4 GB/s with DDR5. The 368H has the higher bandwidth despite the 285HX having more cores.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 single-core?

A: The 368H wins with a score of 3984 against the 285HX's 2187.5, a 45.1% advantage. This is the largest single-core win in the head-to-head data.

Q: Which processor wins in PassMark data compression?

A: The 285HX scores 631885 against the 368H's 312927, a 101.9% advantage. This is the largest multithreaded win in the head-to-head data.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The 285HX supports ECC memory. The 368H does not.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX | Intel Core Ultra X7 368H |

|---|---|---|

| Series | Core Ultra Series 2 | Core Ultra Series 3 |

| Cores | 24 | 16 |

| Threads | 24 | 16 |

| Base clock | 2.80 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.50 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2114 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-HX | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-HX) | Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Process node | 3 nm (TSMC) | 3 nm (Intel) |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | Not recorded |

| Die size | 243 mm² | Not recorded |

| L2 cache | 3 MB per core | 2.5 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 36 MB shared | 18 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Supported | Not supported |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU | Arc B390 |

| Multiplier unlocked | Yes | No |

| Part number | SRVFJ | SA4R7Q9EJ |

| Release date | 2025-01-12 | 2026-01-04 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The 285HX dominates every multithreaded Cinebench test. R15 multicore shows 5656.5 versus 2844, a 98.9% gap. R20 multicore shows 20236 versus 11852, a 70.7% gap. R23 multicore shows 36429.5 versus 28221, a 29.1% gap. The margins shrink as the workload length increases, but the 285HX retains a clear lead.

Single-core Cinebench results split oddly. R15 single-core favors the 368H at 401 versus 323.5, a 19.3% win. R20 single-core favors the 285HX at 2856 versus 1673, a 70.7% win. R23 single-core favors the 368H at 3984 versus 2187.5, a 45.1% win. The R20 result contradicts the R15 and R23 direction, indicating the 285HX's single-core performance varies significantly across test versions. The 368H's R23 single-core score is particularly strong, nearly double the 285HX's.

PassMark tests heavily favor the 285HX. Data compression scores 631885 against 312927, a 101.9% margin. Random string sorting shows 77196 against 38093, a 102.7% margin. Data encryption records 48567 against 25228, a 92.5% margin. Extended instructions score 49148 against 25669, a 91.5% margin. Floating point math delivers 194998 against 105681, an 84.5% margin. Integer math produces 155076 against 88083, a 76.1% margin. Multithread scores 56902 against 32956, a 72.7% margin. Find prime numbers shows 460 against 321, a 43.3% margin. Physics scores 3476 against 2857, a 21.7% margin. Single-thread scores 4618 against 4005, a 15.3% margin.

The 285HX wins all PassMark categories, including single-thread, where its 4618 exceeds the 368H's 4005 by 15.3%. The 368H's single-core Cinebench wins do not translate to PassMark single-thread superiority. Across the full test suite, the 285HX holds an average score 88% higher than the 368H in the head-to-head delta calculations, though the two processors sit in different percentile brackets: 95th versus 87th.

The 285HX delivers roughly double the performance in compression, sorting, encryption, and extended instruction workloads. The 368H delivers a strong single-core Cinebench R23 result and higher memory bandwidth, but its overall average score of 40518 places it against rivals like the Intel Core 7 253PE (0.1% lower) and the Intel Core 5 223PE (0.2% lower), not against the 285HX's peer group of AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX, AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P, and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX. The data indicates the 285HX targets high-end mobile workstations, while the 368H targets efficient mainstream mobile systems.