Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX VS Intel Core i9 13900HX
We are comparing the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX (Intel) with the Intel Core i9 13900HX (Intel). 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 285HX AND Intel Core i9 13900HX
Here’s how Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX and Intel Core i9 13900HX stack up against each other in their most impactful areas.
Reasons to consider the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX
-
2% higher P-core turbo frequency (5500 MHz vs 5400 MHz)
-
18% higher E-core turbo frequency (4600 MHz vs 3900 MHz)
-
27% higher P-core base frequency (2800 MHz vs 2200 MHz)
-
31% higher E-core base frequency (2100 MHz vs 1600 MHz)
-
32% higher Geekbench V6 multi-core score (22274 vs 16919)
-
9% higher Geekbench V6 single-core score (3129 vs 2865)
Reasons to consider the Intel Core i9 13900HX
-
33% more CPU threads (32 vs 24)
-
100% more performance-core threads (16 vs 8)
SPECIFICATION TABLE COMPARISON OF Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX AND Intel Core i9 13900HX
Below is the detailed specification table comparing Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX and Intel Core i9 13900HX.
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 285HX | Intel Core i9 13900HX |
|---|---|---|
|
General Information
|
||
| CPU Name: | Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX | Intel Core i9 13900HX |
| Vendor: | Intel | Intel |
| Release Date: | January 6, 2025 | January 3, 2023 |
| Generation: | Core Ultra (Series 2) | — |
| Type: | Laptop | Laptop |
| Instruction Set: | x86-64 | x86-64 |
| Codename: | Arrow Lake | Raptor Lake |
| Foundry: | TSMC | — |
|
Package and Thermals
|
||
| Manufacturing Process: | 3 nm | 10 nm |
| TDP (PL1): | 55 W | 45-55 W |
| Max Boost TDP (PL2): | 160 W | 157 W |
| Socket: | FCBGA-2114 | BGA-1964 |
| Max Temp (TJMax): | 105 C | 100 C |
|
CPU Cores
|
||
|
Total Cores
|
||
| Total Cores | 24 | 24 |
| Total Threads | 24 | 32 |
|
P-Cores
|
||
| P-Cores | 8 | 8 |
| P-Threads | 8 | 16 |
| P-Core Base Frequency | 2800 MHz | 2200 MHz |
| P-Core Turbo Frequency | 5500 MHz | 5400 MHz |
|
E-Cores
|
||
| E-Cores | 16 | 16 |
| E-Threads | 16 | 16 |
| E-Core Base Frequency | 2100 MHz | 1600 MHz |
| E-Core Turbo Frequency | 4600 MHz | 3900 MHz |
|
NPU
|
||
| NPU |
|
|
| NPU TOPS | 13 TOPS | — |
|
Cache and Bus
|
||
| Multiplier | Unlocked | Unlocked |
| Bus Frequency | 100 MHz | 100 MHz |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 80 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | 36 MB | 36 MB |
|
Memory Support
|
||
| Memory Types: | DDR5-6400 | DDR5-5600, DDR4-3200 |
| Max Memory Size: | 256 GB | 192 GB |
| Memory Channels: | 2 | 2 |
| Max Memory Bandwidth: | — | 89.6 GB/s |
| ECC Support: |
|
|
| Technologies: | ABM, ADX, AI Boost 3.0, AVX-VNNI, BMI1, BMI2, CLMUL, DLBoost 3.0, F16C, IPU 6.0, SHA, CFET, EIST, Speed Shift, TBMT 3.0, TBT 2.0, Thread Director, VT-d, VT-rp, VT-x, VT-x EPT, MBEC, RDRAND, SIPP, TDT, TME, TXT, XD bit, vPro | ABM, ADX, BMI1, BMI2, CLMUL, DLBoost, F16C, SHA, EIST, TBT 2.0, TBT 3.0, TSX, VT-d, VT-x, RDRAND, TXT, XD bit |
|
Benchmarks
|
||
|
Geekbench V6
|
||
| Multi-Core | 22274 | 16919 |
| Single-Core | 3129 | 2865 |
| File Compression | 1540 | 1330 |
| Clang Compression | 227 | 167 |
| HTML5 Browser | 484 | 412 |
| PDF Renderer | 592 | 473 |
| Text Processing | 350 | 281 |
| Background Blur | 90 | 54 |
| Photo Processing | 161 | 130 |
| Ray Tracing | 51 | 36 |
|
PassMark CPU
|
||
| Multi-Core | 57452 | 42027 |
| Single-Core | 4633 | 4021 |
| Integer Math | — | 152800 |
| Floating Point | — | 108100 |
| Prime Numbers | — | 186 |
| String Sorting | — | 57900 |
| Data Encryption | — | 31300 |
| Data Compression | — | 518700 |
| Physics | — | 2570 |
| Extended Instructions | — | 29800 |
|
Cinebench 2024
|
||
| Multi-Core | 2240 | 1737 |
| Single-Core | 126 | 115 |
|
Blender
|
||
| Render Score | 521 | 356 |
Tip: ▲ indicates a higher-is-better spec advantage, while ▼ indicates a lower-is-better advantage.
PERFORMANCE CHART COMPARISON OF Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX AND Intel Core i9 13900HX
The charts below visualize how Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX and Intel Core i9 13900HX stack up in key performance metrics.
Performance Radar Chart
Performance Benchmarks
Release Timeline of Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX and Intel Core i9 13900HX
Intel Core i9 13900HX was released 2 years, 3 days earlier than Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX.
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 285HX
Intel Core i9 13900HX
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 Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX is slightly better overall compared to the Intel Core i9 13900HX. It comes out ahead across every comparable key area.
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.