Intel Core Ultra 9 285T vs Intel Xeon Phi 7290 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data paints a starkly one-sided picture in raw performance terms, though not without a few notable exceptions. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T wins 14 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, while the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 takes only 3. The scale of the Core Ultra 9 285T's victories is often dramatic, particularly in single-threaded workloads where it leads by 89.4% in the Passmark single-thread test, scoring 4576 against the Xeon Phi's 485.

Cinebench results show a consistent pattern of dominance for the Core Ultra 9 285T across every version tested. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core Ultra 9 285T scores 3384 against 1528 for the Xeon Phi 7290, a 54.8% advantage. That same 54.8% delta appears in Cinebench R20 multicore (14100 vs 6368) and Cinebench R23 multicore (33573 vs 15163). Single-core Cinebench results are equally lopsided: the Core Ultra 9 285T leads by 54.9% in R15 (477 vs 215) and R20 (1990 vs 898), and by 54.8% in R23 (4739 vs 2140). The consistency of these deltas across different Cinebench versions suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Passmark results reinforce the same narrative in most categories. Floating-point math heavily favors the Core Ultra 9 285T, which scores 137923 against 47417, a 65.6% lead. Data encryption shows a 61% advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285T (32061 vs 12505). Prime number finding goes to the Core Ultra 9 285T by 67% (345 vs 114). The multithread Passmark score favors the Core Ultra 9 285T by 55.3% (39931 vs 17839), and physics by 20.6% (2842 vs 2257). Even integer math, the closest conventional benchmark, goes to the Core Ultra 9 285T, though by a slim 4.2% (132433 vs 126922).

The Xeon Phi 7290's three wins are concentrated in specific data-processing workloads where its massively parallel architecture shines. Data compression is its largest victory: 564535 vs 384140, a 47% lead. Extended instructions show a 51.1% advantage (41517 vs 27477), and random string sorting goes to the Xeon Phi by 43.8% (68593 vs 47695). These are meaningful wins, and they indicate that certain vectorized or throughput-oriented tasks still respond well to the older chip's design. However, they are isolated bright spots in an otherwise one-sided comparison.

Average benchmark scores place the two processors close together overall. The Xeon Phi 7290 records an average benchmark score of 53469, while the Core Ultra 9 285T averages 51310. Both sit at the 91st percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Xeon Phi's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-14700F (average score 53620, 0.3% behind) and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (53288, 0.3% ahead). The Core Ultra 9 285T's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i9-14900T (51015, 0.6% behind) and the Intel Core i9-13900F (51730, 0.8% ahead). The similarities in average scores mask the very different performance profiles revealed by the individual benchmark breakdown.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 uses the Knights Landing architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm process with 8,000 million transistors. It packs 72 cores and 288 threads, an enormous count that reflects its origins as a many-core accelerator for high-performance computing. Each core carries 32 KB of L1 cache and 512 KB of L2 cache. The chip targets the Server/Workstation market segment and uses Intel Socket 3647. Its base clock is 1500.00 MHz with a boost clock of 1700.00 MHz, and it draws 245 W. It supports DDR4 memory with ECC enabled. The part number is SR2WY, and it was released on 2016-06-19.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, built on Arrow Lake architecture using a 3 nm process from TSMC. It has 17,800 million transistors, more than double the Xeon Phi's count, on a 243 mm² die. The chip offers 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. L1 cache is 192 KB per core, L2 is 3 MB per core, and there is 36 MB of shared L3 cache. It runs at a 1.40 GHz base clock and boosts to 5.40 GHz, a much wider frequency range than the Xeon Phi. The 35 W TDP is dramatically lower than the Xeon Phi's 245 W. It uses Intel Socket 1851 and supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth. ECC memory is supported. PCIe is Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics are present in the form of Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The chip is marked as Active in production status, uses the part number SRQD3, and was released on 2025-01-06. The launch MSRP is $549.

The contrast in design goals is clear. The Xeon Phi prioritizes raw thread count and memory bandwidth for server workloads, while the Core Ultra 9 285T uses a modern, power-efficient process with high clock speeds and a more balanced cache hierarchy for desktop use. The 3 nm process versus 14 nm explains much of the efficiency difference: the Core Ultra 9 285T delivers far higher performance at a fraction of the power draw. The transistor count difference, 17,800 million against 8,000 million, further illustrates the generational gap in manufacturing capability.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 has 72 cores and 288 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores and 24 threads.

Q: How do the two compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285T leads by 89.4% in Passmark single-thread testing, scoring 4576 against the Xeon Phi's 485. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 54.8% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285T (4739 vs 2140).

Q: Where does the Xeon Phi 7290 outperform the Core Ultra 9 285T?

A: The Xeon Phi 7290 wins in data compression (564535 vs 384140, a 47% lead), extended instructions (41517 vs 27477, a 51.1% lead), and random string sorting (68593 vs 47695, a 43.8% lead).

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The Xeon Phi 7290 has a TDP of 245 W, while the Core Ultra 9 285T has a TDP of 35 W.

Q: Which processor supports DDR5 memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon Phi 7290 supports DDR4 memory.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T support ECC memory.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The Xeon Phi 7290 uses Knights Landing architecture on a 14 nm Intel process, while the Core Ultra 9 285T uses Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process. Transistor counts differ substantially: 8,000 million for the Xeon Phi versus 17,800 million for the Core Ultra 9 285T. The die size is listed only for the Core Ultra 9 285T at 243 mm². Core counts are 72 for the Xeon Phi and 24 for the Core Ultra 9 285T. Thread counts are 288 versus 24. The Xeon Phi's base clock is 1500.00 MHz with a 1700.00 MHz boost, while the Core Ultra 9 285T runs at 1.40 GHz base and 5.40 GHz boost. TDP is 245 W for the Xeon Phi and 35 W for the Core Ultra 9 285T. Sockets are Intel Socket 3647 for the Xeon Phi and Intel Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra 9 285T. Cache configurations show 32 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core for the Xeon Phi, versus 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core for the Core Ultra 9 285T, which also adds 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR4 for the Xeon Phi and DDR5 for the Core Ultra 9 285T. The memory bus is dual-channel for the Core Ultra 9 285T with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth; no bus or bandwidth figures are recorded for the Xeon Phi. The Core Ultra 9 285T includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the Xeon Phi has no integrated graphics. The Core Ultra 9 285T lists PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU; no PCIe specification is recorded for the Xeon Phi. Release dates are 2016-06-19 for the Xeon Phi and 2025-01-06 for the Core Ultra 9 285T. The Core Ultra 9 285T is Active in production status; no production status is recorded for the Xeon Phi. Market segments differ: Server/Workstation for the Xeon Phi, Desktop for the Core Ultra 9 285T. Part numbers are SR2WY and SRQD3 respectively. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Core Ultra 9 285T has a recorded launch MSRP of $549; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Xeon Phi.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion for most users: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T is the stronger processor in the majority of measured workloads. It wins 14 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, with particularly large leads in single-threaded performance, floating-point math, and encryption. Its 35 W TDP against the Xeon Phi's 245 W makes it dramatically more power-efficient, and its 5.40 GHz boost clock against 1.70 GHz gives it a massive frequency advantage. The modern 3 nm process, DDR5 support, and integrated graphics add further practical benefits for a desktop system.

The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 retains a narrow but real niche. Its wins in data compression, extended instructions, and random string sorting indicate that certain highly parallel, throughput-oriented tasks still favor its 72-core design. The 47% lead in data compression and 51.1% lead in extended instructions are not trivial, and workloads that resemble those benchmarks could see meaningful benefits from the older chip. The Xeon Phi also holds a slight edge in average benchmark score, 53469 against 51310, though both sit at the 91st percentile overall.

For a desktop user seeking general-purpose performance, the Core Ultra 9 285T is the obvious choice based on the recorded data. For a specialized server environment running compression-heavy or vectorized workloads, the Xeon Phi 7290's specific strengths may justify consideration. The benchmark data does not support a broader case for the Xeon Phi beyond those narrow applications.