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

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds of these two CPUs?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T boosts to 5.40 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H boosts to 5.00 GHz.

Q: Which chip offers the larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, whereas the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, exactly half.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Ultra 9 285T scores 33573 versus 28221 for the Ultra X7 368H, a 19% advantage for the desktop part.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Ultra X7 368H wins?

A: Yes, in Passmark physics the Ultra X7 368H scores 2857 against 2842 for the Ultra 9 285T, a margin of 0.5%.

Q: What memory types do these CPUs support?

A: The Ultra 9 285T supports DDR5, while the Ultra X7 368H supports LPDDR5X.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T and Intel Core Ultra X7 368H come from different architectural lineages. The Ultra 9 285T belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, built on Arrow Lake-S. The Ultra X7 368H belongs to Core Ultra Series 3, built on Panther Lake-H. Both use a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ: TSMC manufactures the Arrow Lake die, while Intel fabricates the Panther Lake chip.

The core configurations diverge sharply. The Ultra 9 285T provides 24 cores and 24 threads, indicating no hyper-threading on its desktop design. The Ultra X7 368H provides 16 cores and 16 threads, likewise without extra threads. The desktop part has a 24-core layout versus a 16-core mobile layout. Base clocks differ: 1.40 GHz for the 285T and 2.00 GHz for the 368H. Boost clocks also differ, with 5.40 GHz on the 285T and 5.00 GHz on the 368H. The desktop chip carries a 35 W TDP, while the mobile chip carries a 25 W TDP.

Cache hierarchies are similar in L1 structure, both listing 192 KB per core. L2 differs: 3 MB per core on the 285T versus 2.5 MB per core on the 368H. L3 differs substantially: 36 MB shared versus 18 MB shared.

Memory support reflects the platform split. The Ultra 9 285T uses DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory. The Ultra X7 368H uses LPDDR5X on a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, and it does not support ECC. PCIe connectivity also differs: the desktop chip provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the mobile chip provides Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The 285T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The 368H uses Arc B390. The socket and form factor differ: the desktop part uses Intel Socket 1851, while the mobile part uses Intel BGA 2540. The transistor count and die size are listed for the 285T at 17,800 million transistors and 243 mm², but those fields are not recorded for the 368H.

Release timing also separates the two. The Ultra 9 285T launched on 2025-01-06 with a launch MSRP of $549. The Ultra X7 368H launched on 2026-01-04 with no recorded launch MSRP. Both are listed as Active in production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a dominant pattern: the Ultra 9 285T wins 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The single exception is Passmark physics, where the Ultra X7 368H leads by a slim 0.5% margin.

Cinebench results are consistent across all versions. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 285T scores 3384 against 2844, a 19% lead. Single-core R15 shows the same 19% gap: 477 versus 401. Cinebench R20 multi-core delivers 14100 versus 11852, again 19%. Single-core R20 gives 1990 versus 1673, a 18.9% margin. Cinebench R23 multi-core repeats the 19% pattern: 33573 versus 28221. Single-core R23 also shows 19%: 4739 versus 3984.

Passmark workloads reveal where the larger core count and cache matter most. Integer math shows the largest gap: 132433 versus 88083, a 50.4% advantage for the 285T. Floating-point math follows with 137923 versus 105681, a 30.5% lead. Data encryption shows 32061 versus 25228, a 27.1% margin. Random string sorting scores 47695 versus 38093, a 25.2% difference. Data compression gives 384140 versus 312927, a 22.8% edge. Passmark multithread shows 39931 versus 32956, a 21.2% lead.

Single-thread Passmark results align with the Cinebench single-core story. The 285T scores 4576 versus 4005, a 14.3% advantage. Extended instructions show a smaller gap: 27477 versus 25669, a 7% lead. Find prime numbers gives 345 versus 321, a 7.5% edge.

The physics result stands as the only counterpoint. The 368H scores 2857 versus 2842, a 0.5% win. This is a narrow margin, within typical run-to-run variation, but the database records it as a win for the mobile part.

The overall average benchmark score reinforces the hierarchy. The Ultra 9 285T averages 51310 across its benchmark suite, while the Ultra X7 368H averages 40518. That places the 285T in the 91st percentile of all CPUs and the 368H in the 87th percentile.

Rival comparisons put each chip in context. The 285T sits within 0.6% of the Intel Core i9-14900T, 0.8% behind the Intel Core i9-13900F, 1.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-13850HX, and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT. The 368H sits 0.1% behind the Intel Core 7 253PE, 0.2% behind the Intel Core 5 223PE, 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H, and 0.2% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6507P.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear performance hierarchy between these two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T is the faster chip in nearly every measured workload. The 24-core configuration with 36 MB of L3 cache and a 5.40 GHz boost clock gives it consistent leads across Cinebench and Passmark tests. Multi-threaded workloads benefit most, with integer math showing a 50.4% advantage and floating-point math showing 30.5%. Content creation, encryption, and compression tasks all favor the desktop part by margins between 19% and 27%.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H occupies a different performance class. Its 16 cores, 18 MB of L3, and 5.00 GHz boost clock place it in the 87th percentile, which is respectable for a mobile processor. The physics test shows it can edge out the 285T in that specific workload, but the margin is 0.5%, a negligible difference. The 368H does offer higher memory bandwidth at 153.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, which reflects its LPDDR5X support. The 368H also uses a newer Panther Lake architecture and an Intel foundry process, whereas the 285T uses Arrow Lake on TSMC.

For users selecting between these two, the decision follows the platform. The Ultra 9 285T is a desktop processor on Socket 1851 with a 35 W TDP, designed for full-size systems. The Ultra X7 368H is a mobile processor on BGA 2540 with a 25 W TDP, designed for laptops. The 285T wins on raw compute across essentially the entire benchmark suite. The 368H wins on power efficiency targets and integrated graphics, featuring Arc B390 versus Arc Xe-LPG 64EU. The 368H also launches a year later in the release timeline. The benchmark data does not show a scenario where the 368H outperforms the 285T in sustained CPU workloads, aside from the physics outlier.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across most specification fields in the database.

• Series: Core Ultra Series 2 versus Core Ultra Series 3
• Cores: 24 versus 16
• Threads: 24 versus 16
• Base Clock: 1.40 GHz versus 2.00 GHz
• Boost Clock: 5.40 GHz versus 5.00 GHz
• TDP: 35 W versus 25 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 1851 versus Intel BGA 2540
• Architecture: Arrow Lake versus Panther Lake
• Codename: Arrow Lake-S versus Panther Lake
• Foundry: TSMC versus Intel
• Transistors: 17,800 million versus not recorded
• Die Size: 243 mm² versus not recorded
• L2 Cache: 3 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core
• L3 Cache: 36 MB shared versus 18 MB shared
• Memory Support: DDR5 versus LPDDR5X
• Memory Bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s
• ECC Memory: True versus False
• PCIe: Gen 5, 20 Lanes versus Gen 5, 4 Lanes
• Integrated Graphics: Arc Xe-LPG 64EU versus Arc B390
• Market Segment: Desktop versus Mobile
• Release Date: 2025-01-06 versus 2026-01-04
• Launch MSRP: $549 versus not recorded
• Part Number: SRQD3 versus SA4R7Q9EJ

The L1 cache is the same on both: 192 KB per core. Both use a dual-channel memory bus. Both have locked multipliers. Both are Active in production. The average benchmark score differs substantially: 51310 for the 285T versus 40518 for the 368H, a gap that shows up consistently across the head-to-head benchmarks.