Intel Core Ultra 9 285 vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H
86
out 100
VS
75
out 100
Compared 2 processors: Intel Core Ultra 9 285, vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H. Below are specs, tests, pros and cons for each device
Review
Single-Thread Perf.
Single-Core Benchmark Score
Multi-Thread Perf.
Multi-Core Benchmark Score
Energy Efficiency
Chip Power Efficiency
Integrated Graphics
iGPU Performance in Games & 3D
Tests & specs
Specs & test comparisonBenchmarks
| Integer Math | n/a | 90.6 GOps/s |
| Floating-Point Math | n/a | 112.3 GOps/s |
| Prime Number Search | n/a | 381 M primes/s |
| Random String Sort | n/a | 48.7 M strings/s |
| Data Encryption | n/a | 30 GB/s |
| Data Compression | n/a | 392.3 MB/s |
| Physics | n/a | 3460 frames/s |
| Extended Instructions | n/a | 329 M matrices/s |
| File Compression | 1500 MB/s | 1490 MB/s |
| Clang Compilation | 234.5 KLines/s | 141.1 KLines/s |
| HTML5 Browser | 453.4 pages/s | 477.4 pages/s |
| PDF Rendering | 585.9 MP/sec | 539.5 MP/sec |
| Text Processing | 358.6 pages/s | 323.1 pages/s |
| Background Blur | 87 frames/s | 61.5 frames/s |
| Photo Processing | 147.8 frames/s | 177.3 frames/s |
| Ray Tracing | 47.9 MP/sec | 28.4 MP/sec |
Blender
Performance/Watt
| Geekbench 6 Multi / W | 332.9 PPW | 701.8 PPW |
| PassMark CPU / W | n/a | 1452.7 PPW |
| Cinebench 2024 / W | 30.4 PPW | 53 PPW |
| Blender / W | n/a | 11.89 PPW |
General Info
| Manufacturer | Intel | Intel |
| Announced | December, 18, 2024 | January, 5, 2026 |
| Type | PC use | Laptop use |
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 |
| Codename | Arrow Lake | Panther Lake |
| Model number | 285 | 388H |
| Integrated GPU | Arc Graphics | Arc B390 |
Processor
| Cores | 8 | 4 |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Frequency | 2.5 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Max Frequency (Turbo) | 5.6 GHz | 5.1 GHz |
| Cores | 16 | 12 |
| Threads | 16 | 12 |
| Frequency | 1.9 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Max Frequency (Turbo) | 4.6 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Cores count | 24 | 16 |
| Threads count | 24 | 16 |
| Bus frequency | 100 MHz | 100 MHz |
| Multiplier | 25x | 21x |
| L1 cache | 192 KB/core | 192 KB/core |
| L2 cache | 3000 KB/core | 2560 KB/core |
| L3 Cache | 36 MB total | 18 MB total |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Package
| Process tech. | 3 nm | 2 nm |
| Power (TDP) | 65 W | 15-25 W |
| Max TDP (Boost) | 182 W | 80 W |
| Socket | FCLGA-1851 | FCBGA2540 |
| Critical temp. | 105 °C | 100 °C |
Memory Support
| Memory Type | DDR5-6400 | LPDDR5X-9600 |
| Max Size | 256 GB | 96 GB |
| Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC support | Yes | No |
| Max memory bandwidth | n/a | 153.6 GB |
Other
| PCIe Version | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Max PCIe Lanes | 24 | 12 |
| Tech | - Compute: ABM, ADX, AVX-VNNI, BMI1, BMI2, CLMUL, DLBoost 3.0, F16C, SHA - Performance: CFET, EIST, TBMT 3.0, TBT 2.0, TVB, Thread Director - Virtualization: VT-d, VT-rp, VT-x - Security: MBEC, RDRAND, SIPP, TDT, TXT, XD bit, vPro |
n/a |
Results
After analyzing the data, we consider Intel Core Ultra 9 285 the clear winner in this comparison.
Survey
Total Votes: 0
