Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs Intel Xeon 654 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 654 and Intel Core Ultra 9 285K occupy different ends of the performance spectrum, and the benchmark data makes that split clear. The Xeon 654 wins 7 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Core Ultra 9 285K takes 10. But the nature of those wins matters more than the count.

The Xeon 654 is the compute-density champion for heavily parallel, cache-sensitive workloads. Its most decisive victories come in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 52150 against 42522, a 22.6% margin. It also dominates single-core in Cinebench R15 and R23 with deltas of 106.7% and 209.7% respectively, which is a surprising outcome for a server part. The Xeon also leads in integer math (207745 vs 172379, a 20.5% edge), physics (5596 vs 3938, a 42.1% margin), data compression (818902 vs 790052, a 3.7% gain), and extended instructions (63539 vs 62277, a 2% advantage). These are the workloads that reward large shared caches and high memory bandwidth, and the Xeon's 72 MB of L3 cache and eight-channel memory bus deliver exactly that.

The Core Ultra 9 285K, on the other hand, wins in nearly every mainstream PC workload. It leads in floating-point math (224324 vs 163093, a 27.3% margin), data encryption (57745 vs 40675, a 29.6% edge), prime number finding (541 vs 390, a 27.9% gain), and random string sorting (94927 vs 82828, a 12.7% advantage). It also wins the PassMark multi-thread test (67260 vs 61353, an 8.8% lead) and single-thread test (5087 vs 3778, a 25.7% margin). In Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core, it beats the Xeon by 19.1% and 8.7% respectively. The R20 single-core result also goes to the Core Ultra by 8.7%. These wins point toward a CPU that responds well to bursty, latency-sensitive tasks and lighter thread counts.

The practical takeaway: if the workload is long-running, cache-heavy, and scales with memory channels, the Xeon 654 pulls ahead. If the workload is typical desktop computing, encryption, or floating-point math, the Core Ultra 9 285K is the stronger choice.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different designs. The Xeon 654 uses the Granite Rapids architecture on a 5 nm process from Intel, while the Core Ultra 9 285K uses Arrow Lake on a 3 nm process from TSMC. The Xeon packs 18 cores with 36 threads, whereas the Core Ultra has 24 cores but only 24 threads, meaning no hyper-threading on the desktop part. The Xeon's die size is listed as 2x 598 mm², a massive dual-die configuration, compared to the Core Ultra's single 243 mm² die with 17,800 million transistors.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The Xeon provides 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a 72 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, but only 36 MB of shared L3. The Xeon's L3 is twice the size, which explains its wins in data compression and integer math where working sets exceed the Core Ultra's cache.

Memory architecture is another major split. The Xeon supports DDR5 with an eight-channel memory bus and a bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s. The Core Ultra also supports DDR5 but only dual-channel, yielding 102.4 GB/s. That is a four-fold difference in theoretical memory bandwidth, and it shows up in the Xeon's multi-core Cinebench R23 result. The Xeon also offers 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, versus 20 lanes on the Core Ultra. Both support ECC memory, which is notable for the desktop part. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the Core Ultra includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

The Xeon is unlocked for overclocking, as is the Core Ultra. The Xeon's base clock is 3.10 GHz with a boost of 4.80 GHz, while the Core Ultra runs at 3.70 GHz base and 5.70 GHz boost. The Core Ultra's higher boost clock helps in single-threaded PassMark tests. The Xeon's TDP is 200 watts versus 125 watts for the Core Ultra, a gap that reflects the server part's larger memory controllers and cache.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest win for the Xeon 654 is Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 7362 against the Core Ultra's 2377, a staggering 209.7% delta. That result is anomalous for a server CPU and suggests the benchmark run favored the Xeon's architecture in an unusual way. The Xeon also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 22.6%, and Cinebench R15 single-core by 106.7%. In PassMark physics, the Xeon leads by 42.1%, and in integer math by 20.5%.

The Core Ultra 9 285K counters with a 19.1% win in Cinebench R15 multi-core (6494 vs 5256) and an 8.7% win in Cinebench R20 multi-core (24003 vs 21903). It also takes Cinebench R20 single-core by 8.7% (3388 vs 3092). The largest Core Ultra victories are in data encryption (29.6%), floating-point math (27.3%), prime numbers (27.9%), and PassMark single-thread (25.7%). In the multi-thread PassMark test, the Core Ultra wins by 8.8%, and in random string sorting by 12.7%.

The overall average benchmark scores place the Xeon at 90717 and the Core Ultra at 83807, a 7.6% gap in favor of the Xeon. Both processors sit in the 96th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 with a 0.2% delta and the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX at -0.5%. The Core Ultra's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus at -0.2% and the AMD EPYC 4584PX at 0.9%.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon 654 wins with a score of 52150 compared to the Core Ultra 9 285K's 42522, a 22.6% advantage.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 9 285K beat the Xeon 654 in any Cinebench test?

A: Yes. The Core Ultra wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 19.1%, Cinebench R20 multi-core by 8.7%, and Cinebench R20 single-core by 8.7%.

Q: Which processor has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Xeon 654 has an eight-channel memory bus delivering 409.6 GB/s, while the Core Ultra 9 285K has a dual-channel bus at 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: Yes, both the Xeon 654 and the Core Ultra 9 285K have an unlocked multiplier.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The Xeon 654 has 18 cores and 36 threads. The Core Ultra 9 285K has 24 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Core Ultra 9 285K, which includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Xeon 654 has no integrated graphics.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. For a workstation or server build where the workload is multi-threaded, cache-intensive, and benefits from massive memory bandwidth, the Xeon 654 is the pick. Its 72 MB L3 cache, eight-channel memory, and 36 threads drive wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core, integer math, physics, and data compression. The 200 watt TDP and dual-die design are acceptable trade-offs for that class of machine.

For a desktop build focused on mainstream productivity, encryption, floating-point math, or single-threaded responsiveness, the Core Ultra 9 285K is the better choice. It wins 10 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, including all PassMark single-thread and multi-thread tests, plus data encryption and floating-point math. Its 125 watt TDP and integrated graphics make it a more practical daily driver.

The Xeon 654's average benchmark score of 90717 versus 83807 for the Core Ultra shows the server part holds a raw performance advantage overall. But the Core Ultra's wins in the most common desktop workloads, plus its 3 nm process from TSMC and higher boost clock of 5.70 GHz, make it the more versatile processor for general use. The Xeon 654's launch MSRP is $1199, the Core Ultra 9 285K's launch MSRP is $589.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in every major specification. The Xeon 654 uses the Granite Rapids architecture on Intel's 5 nm process, with 18 cores and 36 threads. The Core Ultra 9 285K uses Arrow Lake on TSMC's 3 nm process, with 24 cores and 24 threads. The Xeon has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and boost of 4.80 GHz, while the Core Ultra runs 3.70 GHz base and 5.70 GHz boost. TDP is 200 watts for the Xeon and 125 watts for the Core Ultra.

Sockets are completely different: Intel Socket 4710 for the Xeon, Intel Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra. Cache sizes diverge, with the Xeon offering 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 72 MB shared L3, versus the Core Ultra's 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR5 for both, but the Xeon uses eight channels with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, the Core Ultra dual-channel with 102.4 GB/s. Both support ECC.

PCIe lanes differ enormously: the Xeon provides 128 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, the Core Ultra just 20. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, the Core Ultra includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The Xeon's die is 2x 598 mm², the Core Ultra's is 243 mm² with 17,800 million transistors. The Xeon released in 2026, the Core Ultra in 2024. Both are active production parts with unlocked multipliers.