Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K are nearly identical on paper, sharing the same 24-core, 24-thread configuration, the same 3 nm TSMC process node, and the same 125 W TDP. Yet the benchmark data reveals a sharp split in performance character. The 290K Plus claims a narrow victory in overall average score, edging out the 285K by 0.2%, but the 285K dominates the head-to-head win count, taking 14 of 17 benchmarks. This is a tale of two very different performance profiles hiding behind the same silicon foundation, with the 290K Plus posting staggering single-core victories while the 285K systematically wins the multi-threaded and real-world workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The 290K Plus is a single-core specialist. Its most dramatic result comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 7303 against the 285K’s 2377, a 207.2% lead. That is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational gap within the same product family. The same pattern appears in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the 290K Plus scores 736 versus 359, a 105% advantage. These are the kinds of numbers that suggest the 290K Plus is tuned for lightly-threaded responsiveness, and its 5.80 GHz boost clock compared to the 285K’s 5.70 GHz likely plays a role, though the data alone confirms the outcome. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 290K Plus also wins, scoring 51731 against 42522, a 21.7% margin, proving it is not purely a single-threaded chip. That gives it three benchmark wins total: two single-core tests and one multi-core test.

The 285K is the all-rounder with a broader footprint. It wins every PassMark test in the comparison, from data compression (790052 versus 698346, an 11.6% lead) to data encryption (57745 versus 52563, a 9% lead) to extended instructions (62277 versus 52338, a 16% lead). It also takes Cinebench R15 multi-core by a massive 19.7% margin and Cinebench R20 multi-core by 9.5%. The 285K’s wins are consistent across integer math, floating-point math, physics, random string sorting, and multithread workloads. Its PassMark multithread score of 67260 versus 60860 represents a 9.5% advantage, and its single-thread score of 5087 versus 4823 is a 5.2% lead. The 285K even wins the PassMark single-thread test despite losing the Cinebench single-core tests, indicating workload-specific behavior. In short, the 285K is the workhorse for sustained, multi-faceted loads, while the 290K Plus appears optimized for specific rendering and single-core scenarios.

The Verdict

The data points to two distinct buyers. Pick the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus if your primary workloads are Cinebench-style rendering or anything that heavily rewards single-core burst performance. Its 207.2% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 105% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core are not subtle; they represent the largest deltas in the entire comparison. The 290K Plus also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 21.7%, making it the better choice for that specific rendering engine. Its average benchmark score of 84003 places it at the 96th percentile of all CPUs, marginally ahead of the 285K’s 83807.

Pick the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K if your work spans a wider variety of tasks. It wins 14 of 17 benchmarks, including all PassMark tests, which cover compression, encryption, physics, integer math, floating-point math, and random string sorting. Its leads range from 3.6% in integer math to 19.7% in Cinebench R15 multi-core. The 285K also has the edge in Cinebench R20, winning both multi-core and single-core by 9.5% each. If you need a balanced desktop processor that handles diverse workloads with consistent strength, the 285K is the safer choice. The 290K Plus is a specialist; the 285K is the generalist. Benchmarks results indicate that for most users running mixed applications, the 285K’s broader win column makes it the more versatile option, despite the 290K Plus’s higher average score.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest single win for the 290K Plus is Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 7303 against 2377. That 207.2% delta is the largest margin in the entire dataset, and it is a clear outlier compared to every other result. The 290K Plus also wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 105%, scoring 736 versus 359, and Cinebench R23 multi-core by 21.7%, scoring 51731 versus 42522. Those three wins are decisive in rendering-centric workloads, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

The 285K’s largest win is Cinebench R15 multi-core, where it scores 6494 against 5214, a 19.7% margin. That is closely followed by its 16% wins in both extended instructions and random string sorting, where it scores 62277 and 94927 respectively, against the 290K Plus’s 52338 and 79744. The 285K also wins Cinebench R20 multi-core by 9.5% (24003 versus 21727) and Cinebench R20 single-core by 9.5% (3388 versus 3067). In PassMark, the 285K’s leads are more moderate but consistent: 9% in data encryption, 11.6% in data compression, 9.5% in multithread, 15.8% in physics, 7% in find prime numbers, 4.3% in floating-point math, and 3.6% in integer math. The 285K even wins PassMark single-thread by 5.2%, scoring 5087 versus 4823, which contradicts the 290K Plus’s Cinebench single-core dominance. The only test where the 285K does not win is Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it loses by 21.7%, and the two Cinebench single-core tests, where it loses by 105% and 207.2%.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K’s 83807.

Q: How many benchmarks does each CPU win?

A: The 290K Plus wins 3 benchmarks, while the 285K wins 14 out of the 17 head-to-head tests.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the 290K Plus leads by 207.2%, scoring 7303 versus the 285K’s 2377.

Q: Which CPU is better for PassMark multithread workloads?

A: The 285K is better, scoring 67260 versus the 290K Plus’s 60860, a 9.5% advantage.

Q: Do both CPUs have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both have 24 cores and 24 threads, with the same 3.70 GHz base clock and the same 125 W TDP.

Q: Which CPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The 290K Plus has a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, while the 285K has a boost clock of 5.70 GHz.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same fundamental architecture, sharing the Arrow Lake design lineage. The 285K has the explicit codename Arrow Lake-S, while the 290K Plus is labeled as an Arrow Lake Refresh. Both use the 3 nm process node from TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. They share the same cache hierarchy: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have 24 cores and 24 threads, with no hyperthreading, and both have unlocked multipliers for overclocking.

The key differences are subtle but measurable. The 290K Plus boosts to 5.80 GHz, 0.10 GHz higher than the 285K’s 5.70 GHz. Memory bandwidth also differs: the 290K Plus supports 115.2 GB/s, while the 285K supports 102.4 GB/s, a 12.8 GB/s gap that could influence memory-heavy workloads. Both support DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus and both have ECC memory support. They share the same integrated graphics, the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, and the same PCIe configuration of Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. Both use the Intel Socket 1851 and are active production parts.

The 285K has a release date of October 23, 2024, and a launch MSRP of $589, while the 290K Plus has no listed release date or launch MSRP in the data. The 290K Plus has a part number listed as unknown, while the 285K has the part number SRQD5. Both are marked as Core Ultra Series 2 parts from Intel, with the same generation label of Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake). The die size, transistor count, and cache configuration are identical, suggesting the 290K Plus is a refined version of the same silicon, with the boost clock and memory bandwidth being the primary architectural differentiators. The 285K’s benchmark profile shows it punches above its weight in sustained workloads, while the 290K Plus’s higher boost clock appears to deliver outsized gains in specific single-core tests, though the data does not explain the magnitude of those gains beyond the clock difference.