Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs Intel Xeon 6731P Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon 6731P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Xeon provides double the thread count, which directly translates to its wins in heavily threaded workloads like Cinebench R23 multi-core.

Q: What is the difference in their memory bandwidth?

A: The Xeon 6731P uses eight-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s, whereas the Core Ultra 9 285K uses dual-channel DDR5 with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Xeon offers four times the raw memory throughput.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285K boosts up to 5.70 GHz, significantly higher than the Xeon 6731P's 4.10 GHz. This clock advantage, combined with its newer 3 nm process, drives the Core Ultra's lead in single-threaded PassMark performance.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Xeon 6731P and the Core Ultra 9 285K support ECC memory. This makes the desktop Core Ultra part viable for error-correcting workloads, though the Xeon's eight-channel implementation is aimed at server-class reliability.

Q: What are the PCIe lane counts for each?

A: The Xeon 6731P provides 136 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 9 285K provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). The Xeon's massive lane count supports multi-GPU and high-density storage configurations.

Q: Which chip has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Core Ultra 9 285K has integrated graphics, featuring Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The Xeon 6731P has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon 6731P and Intel Core Ultra 9 285K represent two fundamentally different design philosophies from Intel. The Xeon 6731P is built on the Granite Rapids architecture using a 5 nm process node from Intel's own foundry, with a massive die size of 598 mm². It is a server/workstation part designed for maximum throughput, featuring 32 cores and 64 threads with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. Its cache hierarchy is geared toward data center workloads: 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a huge 144 MB of shared L3 cache. The eight-channel memory bus with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth and 136 PCIe Gen 5 lanes make it a platform for heavy I/O.

In contrast, the Core Ultra 9 285K uses the Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm process from TSMC, with a die size of just 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. It has 24 cores and 24 threads — notably no hyper-threading — with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz. Its cache configuration is smaller but faster per-core: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The dual-channel memory bus limits bandwidth to 102.4 GB/s, but the chip compensates with a much higher clock speed and an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. It also integrates Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, which the Xeon lacks entirely.

The process node difference is significant: the Core Ultra's 3 nm TSMC process is denser and more power-efficient, allowing a 125 W TDP versus the Xeon's 245 W TDP. The Xeon's 5 nm Intel process yields a larger chip with more cores and cache but at higher power draw. The Core Ultra also features a newer socket (Intel Socket 1851) versus the Xeon's server-focused Intel Socket 4710.

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two processors by workload type. The Intel Xeon 6731P is the choice for multi-threaded server and workstation tasks that benefit from massive core counts, large shared L3 cache, and high memory bandwidth. It wins 8 out of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, including Cinebench R23 multi-core (44871 vs 42522) and integer math (198761 vs 172379). Its 96th percentile ranking among all CPUs and average benchmark score of 87756 place it slightly ahead of the Core Ultra's 83807 average.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is the better pick for single-threaded performance and general desktop responsiveness. It wins 9 out of 17 benchmarks, including PassMark single-thread (5087 vs 2107) and floating-point math (224324 vs 157330). Its 5.70 GHz boost clock and 3 nm process deliver a 58.6% advantage in single-thread PassMark scores. For gaming, content creation with lightly threaded apps, or any workload that relies on clock speed, the Core Ultra is superior.

The Xeon's 96th percentile is matched by the Core Ultra's 96th percentile, but their nearest rivals tell the story: the Xeon 6731P sits within 0.1% of the Xeon 6736P and 3.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7F72, while the Core Ultra 285K is 0.2% behind the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and 1.5% behind the EPYC 7F72. Neither chip dominates the other; they occupy different niches. A builder prioritizing raw multi-core throughput and memory capacity should pick the Xeon, while anyone needing maximum clock speed and integrated graphics should pick the Core Ultra.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon 6731P | Intel Core Ultra 9 285K |

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

| Cores | 32 | 24 |

| Threads | 64 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.10 GHz | 5.70 GHz |

| TDP | 245 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4710 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Granite Rapids | Arrow Lake |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 598 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 112 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 144 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 136 Lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | $2700 | $589 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the head-to-head data is the Cinebench R23 single-core test, where the Xeon 6731P scores 6334 against the Core Ultra's 2377, a 166.5% advantage. This is counterintuitive given the Core Ultra's higher boost clock, but the data is unambiguous. However, in Cinebench R15 single-core, the Xeon also wins with 638 vs 359, a 77.7% lead. These results suggest that the Xeon's architecture handles these specific single-threaded workloads far better than the Core Ultra, despite the clock speed deficit.

The Core Ultra dominates the Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests. It scores 6494 vs 4522 in R15 (30.4% ahead) and 24003 vs 18845 in R20 (21.5% ahead). This flips in R23 multi-core, where the Xeon wins 44871 vs 42522 (5.5% ahead), likely due to the Xeon's larger cache and thread count in a more demanding workload.

PassMark results show a clear split. The Core Ultra wins data encryption (57745 vs 40087, 30.6% ahead), floating-point math (224324 vs 157330, 29.9% ahead), multithread (67260 vs 52790, 21.5% ahead), random string sorting (94927 vs 88019, 7.3% ahead), and single-thread (5087 vs 2107, 58.6% ahead). The Xeon wins data compression (799474 vs 790052, 1.2% ahead), extended instructions (65656 vs 62277, 5.4% ahead), find prime numbers (541 vs 541, tied), integer math (198761 vs 172379, 15.3% ahead), and physics (7105 vs 3938, 80.4% ahead).

The physics result is notable: the Xeon's 80.4% lead indicates that its core architecture excels at physics simulation, likely benefiting from the 144 MB L3 cache. The Core Ultra's 58.6% single-thread lead confirms its suitability for latency-sensitive tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 6731P wins in workloads that leverage its 64 threads, large cache, and eight-channel memory bandwidth. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core win (44871 vs 42522) is a direct result of its 32 cores and 64 threads. The 80.4% advantage in PassMark physics suggests it is ideal for simulation, scientific computing, and any workload that scales with cache and core count. The integer math win (15.3% ahead) and data compression win (1.2% ahead) further point to data processing and database workloads. With 136 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and 409.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, the Xeon is built for server racks, virtualization hosts, and memory-intensive analytics.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K wins in workloads that favor high clock speeds and modern process efficiency. Its 58.6% lead in PassMark single-thread and 30.6% lead in data encryption highlight its strength in cryptography, real-time processing, and everyday desktop tasks. The floating-point math win (29.9% ahead) makes it a better choice for 3D rendering and scientific applications that rely on FPU performance. The multithread win (21.5% ahead) in PassMark, despite fewer threads, shows that its 5.70 GHz boost clock can outpace the Xeon's lower-clocked cores in certain mixed workloads. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU means it can run display output without a discrete GPU, making it a practical desktop choice. With an unlocked multiplier, it also offers overclocking potential that the Xeon lacks.

For a PC builder, the selection is straightforward: the Xeon 6731P is a server/workstation processor for throughput and memory bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 9 285K is a desktop processor for speed, efficiency, and integrated graphics. The data shows no single winner — each chip wins in its respective domain.