OVERALL

SPECS

VS AVERAGE

REVIEWS

ALTERNATIVES

Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price in UK: ~£520
Avg. price in US: ~$580
PassMark benchmark result: 57394
N. of physical cores: 24
CPU boost clock speed: 5.6 GHz
CPU socket: LGA1851
TDP (Thermal design power): 65 W

Intel Core Ultra 9 285 review. Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

9.1

Exceptional

9.1

Exceptional

8.5

Excellent

8.6
Gaming
Score components:
30.0%
?
PassMark single-core benchmark score
25.0%
?
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
20.0%
10
CPU boost clock speed
17.0%
?
L3 cache
8.0%
10
N. of physical cores
8.4
Video editing
Score components:
45.0%
?
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
20.0%
10
N. of physical cores
20.0%
?
CPU threads
15.0%
?
L3 cache

Best prices in UK

Best rankings

Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is a high-end Arrow Lake-S desktop processor featuring a 24-core, 24-thread configuration with 8 'Lion Cove' Performance cores and 16 'Skymont' Efficiency cores, notably omitting hyper-threading. It operates at a base clock of 2.5 GHz with a maximum turbo frequency of 5.6 GHz, supported by 36MB of L3 cache and 40MB of L2 cache. Key strengths include a significant leap in power efficiency using a 3nm process, a dedicated AI Boost NPU delivering 13 TOPS for local AI tasks, and a modern platform supporting DDR5-6400 memory and 20 PCIe 5.0 lanes. However, it requires a new LGA 1851 socket motherboard, and initial benchmarks show inconsistent gaming performance and relatively modest single-core gains compared to its predecessors.

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core Ultra 9 285

Overall score

9.1

Show more

Hide

Popularity

What it is: An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.

When it matters: When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.

Platform

8.7

Show more

Hide

Brand name

What it is: The manufacturer or brand of the product.

When it matters: When you prefer a specific ecosystem, support network, or design philosophy.

Importance: LOW

Intel

Processor type

What it is: The kind of system the processor is built for, such as desktop PCs, laptops, workstations, or servers.

When it matters: When you want a processor meant for the kind of machine you are actually building or buying, rather than a chip aimed at a different class of system.

Importance: LOW

CPU socket

What it is: The physical socket the processor fits into on the motherboard.

When it matters: When you need to make sure the CPU can actually be installed on a specific motherboard.

Importance: LOW

Chipset

What it is: The motherboard chipset families officially meant to work with the processor.

When it matters: When you are checking whether a CPU will work with the motherboard features and platform you plan to use.

Importance: LOW

CPU architecture

What it is: The processor family or design generation behind the chip, such as Zen 4 or Raptor Lake.

When it matters: When you are comparing CPUs across generations and want a clearer sense of their design age, feature level, and expected performance class.

Importance: LOW

Show more

Performance

9.6

Show more

Hide

N. of physical cores

What it is: The number of physical CPU cores on the processor.

When it matters: When you run workloads that benefit from more real cores.

Importance: HIGH

Good value: 8+

CPU threads

What it is: The total number of processing threads the CPU can handle at once.

When it matters: When you run heavily threaded workloads or multitask a lot.

Importance: HIGH

Good value: 16+

Threads per core

What it is: The number of threads each physical core can handle at once.

When it matters: When you want to understand how much thread-level parallelism each core can provide in multitasking or heavily threaded work.

Importance: LOW

Good value: 2

CPU boost clock speed

What it is: The highest clock speed the processor can reach under boost conditions.

When it matters: When you care about peak speed in short bursts.

Importance: HIGH

Good value: >4.7 GHz

CPU base clock speed

What it is: The processor's normal all-core starting frequency before boost behavior raises clocks temporarily.

When it matters: When you care about steadier performance in longer workloads rather than short burst speed alone.

Importance: MEDIUM

Show more

Cache & Architecture

9.2

Show more

Hide

Semiconductor size

What it is: The manufacturing process node used to produce the processor, usually expressed in nanometers.

When it matters: When efficiency, heat, and the relative modernity of the chip-making process matter to your comparison.

Importance: MEDIUM

Good value: <10 nm

Foundry

What it is: The semiconductor manufacturer that physically fabricates the processor chip.

When it matters: When process source, manufacturing generation, or foundry differences matter to your comparison more than day-to-day performance alone.

Importance: LOW

L3 cache

What it is: The total amount of L3 cache available on the processor.

When it matters: When you want better performance in cache-sensitive workloads and games.

Importance: MEDIUM

Good value: >=16 MB

L2 cache

What it is: The total amount of L2 cache available across the processor.

When it matters: When you want to compare CPU design efficiency and how much fast intermediate cache the cores have available.

Importance: MEDIUM

Good value: >=6 MB

L1 cache

What it is: The total amount of L1 cache built into the processor, which sits closest to the cores.

When it matters: When you are comparing low-level CPU design details rather than the broader performance picture buyers usually notice first.

Importance: LOW

Good value: >=512 KB

Show more

Memory & PCIe

9.4

Show more

Hide

DDR memory version

What it is: The RAM generation the processor is designed to support, such as DDR4 or DDR5.

When it matters: When you need the CPU to match the kind of memory platform you want to buy or reuse.

Importance: LOW

Good value: DDR5

Maximum memory speed

What it is: The highest official memory speed supported by the processor.

When it matters: When you choose RAM and want to know the supported speed ceiling.

Importance: LOW

Good value: >=4800 MHz

Max memory speed (JEDEC)

What it is: The highest official RAM speed the processor supports under standard JEDEC settings, before any memory overclocking profiles are applied.

When it matters: When officially supported stock RAM speed matters more than XMP, EXPO, or manual memory tuning.

Importance: LOW

Good value: >=5600 MHz

Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)

What it is: The highest memory speed supported through XMP or EXPO profiles.

When it matters: When you want faster RAM through memory profiles.

Importance: LOW

Good value: >=5200 MHz

?

Maximum memory capacity

What it is: The largest total amount of memory officially supported by the processor.

When it matters: When you plan a system with very large RAM capacity.

Importance: LOW

Good value: >=128 GB

Show more

Integrated Graphics

8.7

Show more

Hide

Integrated graphics

What it is: Includes built-in graphics, so the system can output video without a separate graphics card.

When it matters: When you want the PC to work without a dedicated GPU, or you are building an office, media, compact, or troubleshooting-friendly system.

Importance: LOW

Integrated GPU model

What it is: The model name of the integrated graphics processor, if present.

When it matters: When you plan to use the CPU's built-in graphics.

Importance: LOW

Integrated GPU execution units

What it is: The number of execution units available in the integrated graphics part of the processor.

When it matters: When you plan to rely on built-in graphics and want a better sense of its light gaming, display, or media capability.

Importance: LOW

Good value: >=24

Integrated GPU base frequency

What it is: The base operating frequency of the integrated GPU.

When it matters: When integrated graphics performance matters to you.

Importance: LOW

Good value: >=350 MHz

Integrated media encoders/decoders

What it is: The hardware media formats the processor can encode or decode directly.

When it matters: When you stream, edit video, or rely on hardware media acceleration.

Importance: LOW

Show more

Power & Thermal

4.7

Show more

Hide

TDP (Thermal design power)

What it is: The rated thermal design power, which gives a general idea of cooling and power needs.

When it matters: When you choose a cooler or build in a tighter case.

Importance: LOW

Good value: <30 W

Base power (PL1)

What it is: The sustained power target used for longer CPU loads.

When it matters: When you choose cooling and power delivery for sustained workloads.

Importance: LOW

Good value: <30 W

Boost power (PL2)

What it is: The short-term boost power limit the processor may draw under heavier turbo loads.

When it matters: When you size cooling and power delivery for peak turbo behavior.

Importance: LOW

Good value: <50 W

Tau (power duration limit)

What it is: The time limit the CPU can stay at higher boost power before dropping toward sustained power.

When it matters: When you want to understand turbo behavior under longer loads.

Importance: LOW

Good value: <=28 s

Configurable TDP

What it is: Allows the processor to run in alternate power modes instead of being fixed to one default TDP target.

When it matters: When you want more control over heat, noise, and power draw in compact systems, quieter builds, or thermally limited machines.

Importance: LOW

Show more

Intel Core Ultra 9 285 vs the average processor

Why is Intel Core Ultra 9 285 better than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

5.43x higher PassMark score
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (57,394 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
What it is: A benchmark score that gives a broad idea of overall processor performance.
When it matters: When you want a quick overall performance comparison.
Importance: HIGH
Good value: >19000
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (57,394 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.57,394 vs 10,572.5
4.18x higher multi-core score
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (20,204 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
What it is: A Geekbench 6 score that reflects multi-core CPU performance in mixed modern workloads.
When it matters: When you want a quick picture of multi-core speed in everyday mixed workloads, multitasking, and broadly optimized software.
Importance: HIGH
Good value: >8500
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (20,204 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.20,204 vs 4,829
18 more CPU cores
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has more CPU cores than the average processor (24 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
What it is: The number of physical CPU cores on the processor.
When it matters: When you run workloads that benefit from more real cores.
Importance: HIGH
Good value: 8+
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has more CPU cores than the average processor (24 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.24 vs 6
96% better single-core performance
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,901 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
What it is: A benchmark score that reflects single-core CPU performance.
When it matters: When you care about responsiveness in lighter or older software.
Importance: HIGH
Good value: >3200
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,901 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.4,901 vs 2,500
2.21x higher single-core score
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,247 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
What it is: A Geekbench 6 score that reflects single-core CPU performance in mixed modern workloads.
When it matters: When you care about snappy everyday performance in lighter apps, browsing, office work, or tasks that do not scale well across many cores.
Importance: HIGH
Good value: >2000
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,247 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.3,247 vs 1,471
More advanced microarchitecture
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
What it is: The internal core-design codename used for this processor generation.
When it matters: When you are comparing CPUs at a deeper design level and want to identify the exact architecture behind marketing names.
Importance: HIGH
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake
30.2% higher boost clock
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
What it is: The highest clock speed the processor can reach under boost conditions.
When it matters: When you care about peak speed in short bursts.
Importance: HIGH
Good value: >4.7 GHz
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.5.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
16 more CPU threads
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has more CPU threads than the average processor (24 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
What it is: The total number of processing threads the CPU can handle at once.
When it matters: When you run heavily threaded workloads or multitask a lot.
Importance: HIGH
Good value: 16+
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has more CPU threads than the average processor (24 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.24 vs 8
Modern CPU socket
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1,851 vs FP4).
Advanced security extensions
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
5 newer release date
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
Supports HMP
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports HMP, the average processor does not. 22.7% of processors support HMP.
5.43x higher PassMark score
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (57,394 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
4.18x higher multi-core score
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (20,204 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
18 more CPU cores
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has more CPU cores than the average processor (24 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
96% better single-core performance
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,901 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
2.21x higher single-core score
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,247 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
30.2% higher boost clock
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
16 more CPU threads
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has more CPU threads than the average processor (24 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
Higher base clock
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x2.5 GHz & 16x1.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
4 wider front-end design
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher front-end width than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
Supports Turbo Core
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports Turbo Core, the average processor does not. 1% of processors support Turbo Core.
More advanced microarchitecture
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
16x larger L2 cache
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (40 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
4.5x larger L3 cache
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (36 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
6x more L2 per core
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
75% smaller process node
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a lower process node than the average processor (3 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
9.33x larger L1 cache
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (3,584 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
More advanced foundry
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 3 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
Uses big.LITTLE design
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses a big.LITTLE design, the average processor does not. 20.5% of processors use a big.LITTLE design.
3.6x more transistors
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has more transistors than the average processor (17.8 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
Newer PCIe version
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3.0).
8 more PCIe lanes
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
2.24x higher memory bandwidth
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (102.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
3x more memory capacity
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (192 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
2.18x higher memory speed
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (6,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2,933 MHz.
Supports memory overclocking
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
Newer DDR support
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
Supports ECC memory
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, the average processor does not. 32.5% of processors support ECC memory.
Higher JEDEC memory speed
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-6400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
Better integrated GPU
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
2.67x more GPU execution units
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has more GPU execution units than the average processor (64 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
1 more supported displays
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
5 °C higher TJ Max
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.

Cache & Architecture

Integrated Graphics

Power & Thermal

Why is Intel Core Ultra 9 285 worse than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

Narrower instruction support
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
No multithreading support
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
1 fewer threads per core
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
37.3% larger die size
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher die size than the average processor (243 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
12.5% less L3 per core
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
Limited PCIe bifurcation
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
No configurable TDP
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
3.03x higher boost power
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (182 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
44.4% higher base power
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
5 °C higher CPU temperature
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
44.4% higher TDP
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
No configurable TDP
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
What it is: Allows the processor to run in alternate power modes instead of being fixed to one default TDP target.
When it matters: When you want more control over heat, noise, and power draw in compact systems, quieter builds, or thermally limited machines.
Importance: LOW
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
3.03x higher boost power
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (182 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
What it is: The short-term boost power limit the processor may draw under heavier turbo loads.
When it matters: When you size cooling and power delivery for peak turbo behavior.
Importance: LOW
Good value: <50 W
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (182 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.182 W vs 60 W
No multithreading support
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
What it is: Lets each physical core run more than one thread at the same time, such as with Hyper-Threading or SMT.
When it matters: When multitasking, rendering, compiling, virtualization, or other thread-heavy work benefits from more total processing threads.
Importance: LOW
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
Narrower instruction support
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
What it is: The supported CPU instruction sets and extensions.
When it matters: When you run software that depends on specific CPU instructions.
Importance: LOW
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
44.4% higher base power
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
What it is: The sustained power target used for longer CPU loads.
When it matters: When you choose cooling and power delivery for sustained workloads.
Importance: LOW
Good value: <30 W
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.65 W vs 45 W
37.3% larger die size
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher die size than the average processor (243 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
What it is: The physical area of the processor die, usually measured in square millimeters.
When it matters: When you are comparing chip scale, packaging density, or broader design differences rather than direct user-visible performance.
Importance: LOW
Good value: <150 mm²
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher die size than the average processor (243 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².243 mm² vs 177 mm²
12.5% less L3 per core
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
What it is: The amount of L3 cache effectively available per CPU core.
When it matters: When you are comparing how much shared cache each core can draw on in deeper technical analysis.
Importance: LOW
Good value: >=2 MB/core
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
5 °C higher CPU temperature
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
What it is: The reported operating temperature of the processor.
When it matters: When you monitor thermals, cooling, or system stability.
Importance: LOW
Good value: <100 °C
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.105 °C vs 100 °C

Cache & Architecture

Power & Thermal

Graphic comparison of Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and other processors

Attribute category

Attribute

No results found

Third-party reviews

United Kingdom

(Reviews last updated: May 2026)

What customers like about Intel Core Ultra 9 285?

Significantly improved power efficiency and lower power consumption compared to the 14th Gen
Strong performance in multi-threaded productivity workloads like rendering and content creation
Operates at much lower temperatures, making it easier to cool with standard air or liquid cooling
Improved single-thread performance leads to a snappy and responsive user experience
Modern platform features including PCIe 5.0 support for both storage and GPUs, plus high-speed DDR5 (CUDIMM) support
Substantial 100% performance gain for integrated graphics (IGP) compared to previous generations

What customers dislike about Intel Core Ultra 9 285?

Disappointing gaming performance that often trails behind previous-gen Intel chips and AMD's X3D processors
High entry cost due to the requirement for a new LGA 1851 motherboard
Removal of Hyper-Threading can lead to lower performance in specific tasks like file decompression
Included NPU is relatively weak (13 TOPS) and does not meet the 40 TOPS requirement for Microsoft Copilot+ PC certification
Minimal generational gains or even regressions in some application benchmarks compared to the i9-14900K

Expert reviews

vortez.net

24/10/2024

Summary of the review

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Review - Introduction Would you like to see a comparison table of the benchmark results from these specific reviews? Copy

The Vortez review of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K highlights a major architectural shift to the "Arrow Lake" tile-based design, prioritizing power efficiency over raw, high-thermal performance by removing Hyper-threading. While the 24-core chip offers excellent multi-threaded productivity, gaming performance is described as a sideways move compared to the 14900K, falling behind AMD's X3D chips, despite vastly improved, manageable thermal performance. Ultimately praised for efficiency, the processor’s main drawbacks include the mandatory, costly LGA 1851 motherboard upgrade and inconsistent gaming gains.

wepc.com

18/12/2024

Summary of the review

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K review: surprising performance from a non-hyperthreaded flagship

The WePC review of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K highlights the processor as a productivity powerhouse, featuring 24 cores on the new LGA 1851 socket, though it lacks Hyper-Threading. While it delivers exceptional performance in multi-core workloads and superior efficiency due to the 3nm process, gaming performance is considered underwhelming compared to predecessors and competitors. Pros include high-efficiency, competitive pricing, and strong synthetic performance, but cons focus on lackluster gaming results and the requirement for a new, expensive Z890 motherboard.

insider-gaming.com

29/10/2024

Summary of the review

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Review: A New Era for Efficiency, But Is It Right for You?

The Insider Gaming review of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K highlights a strategic shift toward exceptional power efficiency, boasting a 52% reduction in max power consumption and significantly cooler operating temperatures compared to the i9-14900K. While the processor excels in productivity tasks like 3D modeling, it offers only comparable gaming performance to previous generations, making it a "step to the side" for gamers, exacerbated by high Z890 platform costs and initial software bugs. Despite early adoption hurdles, such as installation and boot loop issues, the chip is recommended for users prioritizing a cool-running, efficient workstation over raw gaming gains.

gamersnexus.net

29/10/2024

Summary of the review

Get It Together, Intel: Core Ultra 9 285K CPU Review & Benchmarks

The Gamers Nexus review of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K highlights a product that struggles with identity, offering improved efficiency over the 14900K while regressing in gaming performance and lacking a clear market position. While the chip demonstrates superior thermal management and a 67% efficiency increase over its predecessor in simulation tasks, its gaming performance frequently trails the AMD 7800X3D and even previous-gen Intel parts. Despite competitive productivity gains, the 285K's high cost, coupled with the requirement for a new LGA 1851 motherboard, leads to a recommendation against it compared to better-performing alternatives from both AMD and Intel.

hwbusters.com

24/10/2024

Summary of the review

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K CPU Review - Performance, Thermals & Power Analysis

The Hardware Busters review highlights the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K as a major architectural shift focusing on efficiency and thermals over raw performance gains, utilizing the TSMC N3B process in a new "chiplet" design. While delivering strong productivity performance, the 24-core CPU offers only a "decent" performance jump over the 14900K and underperforms in gaming. Key advantages include vastly improved, manageable thermal performance suitable for air cooling and robust platform upgrades such as high-speed DDR5 and extensive PCIe 5.0 lanes, though it faces drawbacks in gaming, high platform costs (LGA 1851), and a low-power NPU.

club386.com

24/10/2024

Summary of the review

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K review: new design, old performance

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K shifts focus to energy efficiency and a new "Arrow Lake" architecture, resulting in significantly cooler operating temperatures and up to a 62W reduction in power during rendering compared to the Core i9-14900K. Pros include strong multi-core performance, a dedicated NPU for AI, and superior thermal management without throttling. Club386Conversely, the review highlights that the chip fails to offer class-leading performance, often trailing AMD's Ryzen 9, particularly in gaming titles like Cyberpunk 2077. Cons include the absence of Hyper-Threading, mixed productivity results in applications such as 7-Zip, and the requirement for a new, costly LGA 1851 motherboard. Ultimately described as an "adequate" vanguard for Intel's future, the 285K's focus on efficiency inhibits it from taking the top spot in pure performance. While a solid option for a premium build, its inability to significantly advance performance makes it difficult to recommend for users already on a recent platform. Club386

techspot.com

24/10/2024

Summary of the review

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Review - TechSpot

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K shifts to a chiplet design, focusing on power efficiency and thermals, with a 32% reduction in power usage and 12-degree lower temperatures under load compared to the 14900K. While offering superior single-core performance, it falls short in multi-core decompression and, critically, shows disappointing 5–6% slower gaming performance than its predecessor, failing to compete with AMD's X3D series. Despite strong professional workstation performance—surpassing the 14900K in Cinebench by 14%—the high cost of new Z890 motherboards and reported, significant stability issues with Windows 11 24H2 make it hard to recommend for gamers. For more details, visit TechSpot.

tomshardware.com

24/10/2024

Summary of the review

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and Core 5 245K Review

According to the Tom's Hardware review, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K shifts focus toward power efficiency and productivity over raw gaming, utilizing the new LGA 1851 socket with 24 cores but dropping Hyper-Threading. The chip delivers strong threaded performance and significantly lower power consumption (40-60% less in gaming) compared to the i9-14900K, largely due to TSMC 3nm compute tiles. However, it often lags behind previous-gen Intel and AMD alternatives in gaming, and requires a mandatory, costly upgrade to Z890 motherboards.

ign.com

24/10/2024

Summary of the review

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Review

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K represents a strategic, efficiency-focused shift for Intel, functioning as a "lateral move" that succeeds the i9-14900K with a new architecture lacking Hyper-Threading. While it offers significant improvements in productivity, creative tasks, and thermal management, it suffers from a regression in gaming performance, often trailing its predecessor. Key pros include cooler operating temperatures (peaking at 86°C) and robust rendering performance, while cons include subpar gaming, the need for a new LGA 1851 motherboard, and a less-than-compelling dedicated AI NPU.

pcworld.com

24/10/2024

Summary of the review

Core Ultra 9 285K review: New Intel desktop CPUs are wildly different

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K introduces a disaggregated chiplet architecture (Arrow Lake) that removes Hyper-Threading, offering 24 physical cores and 24 threads. It demonstrates improved efficiency over the Core i9-14900K, boasting up to 21% higher productivity in rendering and encoding while running cooler due to lower power consumption. While offering solid productivity gains and platform improvements like PCIe 5.0 and DDR5, the 285K exhibits inconsistent gaming performance, often trailing both AMD's Ryzen 9 9950X and the previous-gen 14900K. Furthermore, the CPU suffers significant, unexpected performance dips on default power settings and its integrated 13 TOPS NPU fails to meet the 40 TOPS requirement for advanced Microsoft "Copilot+" AI features. The necessity of a new Z890 motherboard for the LGA 1851 socket increases the total cost of ownership, making this chip primarily attractive for workstation users rather than gamers. Ultimately, the 285K prioritizes power efficiency and multi-core productivity over maximum gaming frame rates, marking a shift from previous Intel strategies.

pcmag.com

24/10/2024

Summary of the review

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Review - PCMag

The PCMag review characterizes the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K ("Arrow Lake") as a revolutionary, albeit inconsistent, shift that removes hyper-threading in favor of architectural enhancements for efficiency and professional workloads. Pros include a 17% multicore performance boost in Cinebench 2024 and 11% lower peak power consumption compared to the Core i9-14900K. However, cons feature "hit-or-miss" gaming performance, with significant trailing in titles like F1 2024. While offering superior rendering and platform features like LGA1851, the chip's current software optimization issues make it a difficult recommendation until further maturity, according to PCMag.

windowscentral.com

31/10/2024

Summary of the review

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K review: Ultra-efficient productivity

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, as reviewed by Windows Central, represents a shift toward efficiency and power-user performance, utilizing a 3nm process that significantly improves thermals and reduces power consumption. The CPU delivers top-tier productivity results in multi-core applications but requires a new LGA 1851 socket motherboard. While excellent for content creation, the processor shows limited gains in gaming, performing closely to the previous generation, and includes a relatively weak NPU that fails to meet Copilot+ standards. The high cost of upgrading to the Z890 platform, combined with this modest gaming performance jump, makes it a specialized choice rather than a general upgrade. Ultimately, the 285K is positioned as a powerhouse for professionals valuing, quiet, cool operation over raw gaming FPS increases. Copy

pcguide.com

24/10/2024

Summary of the review

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K review: a necessary fresh start for the next generation

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K shifts to a 3nm tile-based design, delivering exceptional multi-core performance in Cinebench R23 and Geekbench while utilizing 24 cores without hyper-threading. This architecture, boasting 8 P-cores and 16 E-cores, solves previous thermal issues, offering significantly cooler operation under load. PC GuideHowever, the CPU delivers disappointing single-core performance that often matches or trails the competition. Gaming capabilities, while strong, are unlikely to surpass AMD’s X3D series, and the required LGA 1851 socket increases platform costs. PC GuideUltimately, the 285K is a productivity-focused, efficient chip that prioritizes thermal management over absolute, unmatched gaming speed. Key pros include high-end multi-core throughput and cool operation, while cons include stagnant single-core performance, weaker-than-expected gaming against the competition, and a new motherboard requirement. PC Guide Copy

eurogamer.net

24/10/2024

Summary of the review

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and Ultra 5 245K review - Eurogamer

Digital Foundry's review of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and Ultra 5 245K (Arrow Lake) highlights a major architectural shift to a tile-based design, resulting in significant improvements in power efficiency, with the 285K performing strongly in multi-threaded tasks while using considerably less power than its predecessors. However, the review notes a disappointing performance in gaming, where increased memory latency leads to results that often fall behind previous-generation 14th-gen Intel parts, particularly in titles dependent on single-core performance. Overall, the chips excel in content creation and thermal efficiency but struggle to justify their cost over competitors for pure gaming, requiring a new LGA-1851 motherboard. Copy

tomshardware.com

24/10/2024

Summary of the review

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and Core 5 245K Review - Tom's Hardware

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K represents a major, chiplet-based architectural shift ("Arrow Lake") that heavily emphasizes efficiency and productivity, yielding significant performance gains in Cinebench 2024 and POV-Ray, as noted by Tom’s Hardware. It achieves a substantial 36% reduction in power consumption and runs cooler than the previous generation, offering a strong, stable platform for content creation. However, the chip represents a step backward in gaming, often trailing its predecessor and failing to compete with AMD's X3D alternatives in high-FPS scenarios. Furthermore, high entry costs for the required Z890 motherboard and mixed performance results at launch make it less compelling for gamers compared to professionals looking for raw efficiency.

igorslab.de

16/06/2025

Summary of the review

Intel Core Ultra 9 285, Core Ultra 7 265K, Core Ultra 5 245K and 235 re-tested

Igor's Lab retested Intel's Core Ultra 200 series (Arrow Lake), finding significant performance and stability gains through firmware updates, specifically highlighting vastly improved frame time distributions and a massive boost in efficiency. The Core Ultra 9 285K and 5 235 are praised for leading efficiency in their classes, with the 5 235 offering a highly economical, capable option, while the platform finally delivers on initial promises of a smoother, more efficient, and productive experience, often surpassing the i9-14900K in professional apps. However, the architecture faces drawbacks: it remains a complex, expensive, multi-tile design where games can still struggle to assign threads efficiently, leading to inconsistent performance across titles, despite a 1–6% gain over the launch. Furthermore, the Core Ultra 7 265K requires higher, less efficient voltages compared to its peers, and the gains, while positive, do not completely eliminate the initial architectural hurdles. For the complete in-depth analysis, read the review at Igor's Lab. igor´

hardwarecooking.fr

17/09/2024

Summary of the review

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K: iGPU as powerful as a GTX 1050 Ti

The HardwareCooking review of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K highlights a major architectural shift, utilizing a Graphics Tile with Xe-LPG architecture. The integrated GPU, featuring 4 Xe-cores at 2,000 MHz, provides improved, yet utilitarian, performance over previous generations rather than replacing dedicated gaming cards. While synthetic benchmarks place it near an NVIDIA GTX 1050 Ti, actual gaming requires low settings and upscaling technologies for playable framerates. Pros include significantly improved energy efficiency due to the 3nm TSMC process, reduced operating temperatures, and robust support for modern connectivity like high-speed DDR5. Conversely, the processor faces issues with gaming performance, where it often falls behind its predecessor and AMD counterparts. Additionally, the platform requires a new LGA 1851 socket and costly Z890 motherboards, increasing the overall cost. Copy

hardwarecooking.fr

11/10/2024

Summary of the review

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K: It's official, the i9-14900K will remain better for gaming

According to the HardwareCooking.fr review, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K shifts focus toward superior energy efficiency and lower operating temperatures compared to the i9-14900K, utilizing the new Arrow Lake-S architecture and a 3nm process. While it boasts increased L2 cache and stronger E-cores for productivity, the 285K often consumes less power to achieve similar, yet slightly lower, gaming performance than its predecessor, with a 3–6% average deficit in many titles. Despite these efficiency gains, the 285K’s primary drawbacks for gamers include a lack of a clear performance lead, the removal of hyperthreading resulting in potential regressions in specific titles, and the high entry cost of requiring a new Z890 motherboard. For more details, visit HardwareCooking.fr. Copy

hardwarecooking.fr

10/09/2024

Summary of the review

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K: 14% performance boost over Ryzen 9 9950X

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K ("Arrow Lake") introduces a 3nm process and abandons hyperthreading for a focus on raw efficiency, demonstrating 5% to 14% higher performance over the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X in multi-threaded tasks like Cinebench R23. While offering strong productivity gains and a dedicated NPU for AI, the 285K falls behind the 9950X in gaming performance, where AMD's Zen 5 architecture holds an advantage in frame rates. Major pros include high productivity throughput and efficient power consumption, whereas cons include the requirement of a new, uncertain LGA1851 platform and weaker gaming performance. Copy

hardwareand.co

24/10/2024

Summary of the review

Core Ultra 5 245K / 7 265K / 9 285K Review: Does Arrow Lake mark Intel's return to the top?

The Hardware & Co review of Intel’s Arrow Lake processors (Core Ultra 9 285K and 5 245K) highlights a strategic pivot toward power efficiency and improved thermal management over raw gaming speed. While removing Hyper-Threading, the new architecture delivers strong productivity gains, with the 285K proving highly capable in rendering tasks, and both chips running significantly cooler than the previous generation. However, gaming performance often regresses compared to 14th Gen chips, and the required shift to the LGA 1851 platform introduces high costs, making them a mixed value proposition compared to competition, especially for gamers. Copy

profesionalreview.com

24/10/2024

Summary of the review

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Review (Full Analysis)

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K represents a strategic shift toward efficiency, utilizing a 3nm process with 8 Lion Cove P-cores and 16 Skymont E-cores that significantly lowers thermal output by roughly 15°C compared to the i9-14900K. While offering improved single-thread performance, the CPU shows modest multi-core gains, partly due to the removal of Hyper-Threading, and presents a slight, unexpected downgrade in 1080p gaming performance. The platform introduces the LGA 1851 socket and Z890 chipset, supporting high-speed DDR5 CUDIMM and featuring improved power efficiency, though it comes at a higher entry cost for users. Pros: Significantly lower temperatures (up to 15°C cooler under stress).Improved power efficiency, consuming about 30% less energy.Powerful new Z890 platform with extensive PCIe lanes.Better single-thread performance and high-speed DDR5 support. Cons: Gaming performance regression at 1080p.High entry cost due to new motherboards and CPU price.Underwhelming NPU and iGPU performance.Removal of Hyper-Threading, limiting multi-threaded gains.

elchapuzasinformatico.com

24/10/2024

Summary of the review

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K: Gaming CPU Review

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K represents a significant shift to a chiplet-based "Arrow Lake" design, focusing on improved energy efficiency and thermals, often operating cooler and consuming less power than the i9-14900K, according to. It features 24 cores without Hyper-Threading, offering strong multi-threaded workstation performance for tasks like rendering, but its gaming performance is regressive, often losing to both the 14900K and AMD's Ryzen 9000 series due to high internal latencies. The platform requires new Z890 motherboards and DDR5, and the integrated NPU offers 13 TOPS, falling short of Copilot+ requirements, making it a specialized choice for productivity over gaming, per.

ct.nl

29/10/2024

Summary of the review

Intel Core Ultra 5 245K, 7 265K & 9 285K Review

The Intel Core Ultra 200S (Arrow Lake) shifts to a chiplet design focusing on power efficiency and cooler operation over raw clock speeds. Pros include roughly 10% lower power consumption than the 14th Gen and significantly reduced operating temperatures. However, gaming performance is inconsistent compared to previous generations, and the requirement for a new LGA 1851 platform results in high upgrade costs. The processors are better suited for productivity and content creation, although subsequent "Plus" refreshes aim to address initial performance and value concerns. For more details, visit c't. Copy

techgaming.nl

24/10/2024

Summary of the review

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and Core Ultra 7 265K Review

TechGaming's review of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and 7 265K highlights a major shift toward chiplet-based design, delivering superior power efficiency and thermal management compared to 14th Gen chips, even with air cooling. While the processors show strong performance in multi-threaded productivity, they offer limited gains in gaming over the i9-14900K and face a performance dip in certain titles. The removal of Hyper-Threading and the necessity of expensive new LGA 1851 motherboards are noted as significant drawbacks. Despite these issues, the Core Ultra 7 265K is recommended as the better-balanced option for enthusiasts over the high-cost 285K. Copy

tweakers.net

15/09/2025

Summary of the review

In-depth and independent Intel Core Ultra 9 285K reviews

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K review on Tweakers highlights a significant architectural shift to a modular, tile-based design on the LGA1851 socket, prioritizing energy efficiency over the high clock speeds of the previous generation. While competing heavily with the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X in productivity tasks, the processor shows a distinct performance improvement over the Core i9-14900K, offering superior, cooler efficiency. However, the review notes underwhelming and often regressive gaming performance, with potential disadvantages in latency-sensitive tasks due to the new architecture, along with the requirement for new, costly Z890 motherboards. Copy

Video reviews

Best alternatives

Intel Core i9 14900T

Processors

Intel Core i9 13900

Processors

Intel Core i9 13900K

Processors

Intel Core i9 13900KS

Processors

AMD Ryzen 9 9950x3d

Processors

AMD Ryzen 9 7900x3d

Processors

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X

Processors

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

Processors

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X

Processors

Intel Core i9 14900

Processors

Intel Core i9 14900K

Processors

AMD Ryzen 9 7950x3d

Processors

Compare Intel Core Ultra 9 285 with other processors

Compare