Intel Core Ultra 9 285 VS AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D
We are comparing the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 (Intel) with the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D (AMD). Scroll down to the pros and cons of each processor, in-depth specs, and benchmark comparisons.
Overall Comparison
KEY DIFFERENCES OF Intel Core Ultra 9 285 AND AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D
Here’s how Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D stack up against each other in their most impactful areas.
Reasons to consider the Intel Core Ultra 9 285
-
100% more CPU cores (24 vs 12)
-
2% higher P-core turbo frequency (5600 MHz vs 5500 MHz)
-
14% more memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s vs 89.6 GB/s)
-
25% smaller manufacturing process (3 nm vs 4 nm)
-
Includes dedicated NPU acceleration
Reasons to consider the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D
-
200% more performance-core threads (24 vs 8)
-
50% more performance cores (12 vs 8)
-
76% higher P-core base frequency (4400 MHz vs 2500 MHz)
-
6% higher Geekbench V6 multi-core score (21380 vs 20165)
-
7% higher Geekbench V6 single-core score (3349 vs 3134)
SPECIFICATION TABLE COMPARISON OF Intel Core Ultra 9 285 AND AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D
Below is the detailed specification table comparing Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D.
Note: Highlighted specs mean that CPU wins that spec row.
If neither side is highlighted, it is a tie or there is not enough data for both specs.
| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 | AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D |
|---|---|---|
|
General Information
|
||
| CPU Name: | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 | AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D |
| Vendor: | Intel | AMD |
| Release Date: | December 18, 2024 | January 7, 2025 |
| Generation: | Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake) | — |
| Type: | Desktop | Desktop |
| Instruction Set: | x86-64 | x86-64 |
| Codename: | Arrow Lake-S | Zen 5 (Granite Ridge) |
| Foundry: | TSMC | — |
|
Package and Thermals
|
||
| Manufacturing Process: | 3 nm | 4 nm |
| Die Size: | 243 mm² | — |
| Transistor Count: | 17.8 billion | — |
| TDP (PL1): | 65 W | 120 W |
| Max Boost TDP (PL2): | 182 W | 230 W |
| Socket: | FCLGA1851 | AM5 |
| Max Temp (TJMax): | 105 C | 95 C |
|
CPU Cores
|
||
|
Total Cores
|
||
| Total Cores | 24 | 12 |
| Total Threads | 24 | 24 |
|
P-Cores
|
||
| P-Cores | 8 | 12 |
| P-Threads | 8 | 24 |
| P-Core Base Frequency | 2500 MHz | 4400 MHz |
| P-Core Turbo Frequency | 5600 MHz | 5500 MHz |
|
E-Cores
|
||
| E-Cores | 16 | — |
| E-Threads | 16 | — |
| E-Core Base Frequency | 1900 MHz | — |
| E-Core Turbo Frequency | 4600 MHz | — |
|
NPU
|
||
| NPU |
|
|
| NPU TOPS | 13 TOPS | — |
|
Cache and Bus
|
||
| Multiplier | Locked | Unlocked |
| Bus Frequency | 100 MHz | 100 MHz |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 80 KB |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | 1 MB |
| L3 Cache | 36 MB | 128 MB |
|
Memory Support
|
||
| Memory Types: | DDR5-6400 | DDR5-5600 |
| Max Memory Size: | 256 GB | 192 GB |
| Memory Channels: | 2 | 2 |
| Max Memory Bandwidth: | 102.4 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |
| ECC Support: |
|
|
| Technologies: | ABM, ADX, AVX-VNNI, BMI1, BMI2, CLMUL, DLBoost 3.0, F16C, SHA, CFET, EIST, TBMT 3.0, TBT 2.0, TVB, Thread Director, VT-d, VT-rp, VT-x, MBEC, RDRAND, SIPP, TDT, TXT, XD bit, vPro | AVX-512, BMI1, BMI2, F16C, SHA, Precision Boost 2, SMT, AMD-V, EVP, SMAP, SMEP |
|
Benchmarks
|
||
|
Geekbench V6
|
||
| Multi-Core | 20165 | 21380 |
| Single-Core | 3134 | 3349 |
| File Compression | 1380 | 1820 |
| Clang Compression | 221 | 195 |
| HTML5 Browser | 407 | 411 |
| PDF Renderer | 502 | 544 |
| Text Processing | 356 | 344 |
| Background Blur | 81 | 82 |
| Photo Processing | 141 | 144 |
| Ray Tracing | 47 | 45 |
|
PassMark CPU
|
||
| Multi-Core | — | 56242 |
| Single-Core | — | 4646 |
| Integer Math | — | 180000 |
| Floating Point | — | 119900 |
| Prime Numbers | — | 548 |
| String Sorting | — | 71900 |
| Data Encryption | — | 33300 |
| Data Compression | — | 686500 |
| Physics | — | 5356 |
| Extended Instructions | — | 55500 |
|
Cinebench 2024
|
||
| Multi-Core | 1508 | 1923 |
| Single-Core | 133 | 136 |
|
Blender
|
||
| Render Score | — | 468 |
Tip: ▲ indicates a higher-is-better spec advantage, while ▼ indicates a lower-is-better advantage.
PERFORMANCE CHART COMPARISON OF Intel Core Ultra 9 285 AND AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D
The charts below visualize how Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D stack up in key performance metrics.
Performance Radar Chart
Performance Benchmarks
Release Timeline of Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 was released 20 days earlier than AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D.
Value For Money Calculator
Prices use available launch or current data. Enter your own prices to see which CPU gives better value.
Intel Core Ultra 9 285
AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D
Calculating...
Domain Score Summary
Scores are generated by Comparigon's scoring algorithm and are intended as a high-level guide. They may not map 1-to-1 with the individual spec-by-spec comparisons shown in the table.
Our Verdict
In conclusion, the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D has a narrow overall lead compared to the Intel Core Ultra 9 285. Its strongest advantages are in Single-Core Performance, Multi-Core Performance, CPU Architecture and Energy Efficiency. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the better fit if your top priority is Memory Architecture.
Try to Compare Again One of These CPUs With Another CPU
Pick which CPU to keep, then search for the other CPU to compare.
Disclaimer: Specs, pricing, and benchmarks are sourced from official manufacturer data and verified test results. While we strive for precision, product details and pricing may change. Comparigon may earn an affiliate commission on qualifying purchases.