Intel
Intel Core Ultra 9 285 vs Intel Core 7 251E
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
Intel
Core 7 251E
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Core Ultra 9 285 and Core 7 251E across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗Core Ultra 9 285 outperforms Core 7 251E by 68% based on our aggregate benchmark results.+68%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better.Intel Core Ultra 9 285 vs Intel Core 7 251E: key takeaway
The comparison of Core Ultra 9 285 and Core 7 251E shows a 68% advantage for Core Ultra 9 285 in gaming performance, while Core 7 251E may still be stronger in efficiency and feature set. Use the sections below to check whether that lead comes from real FPS, specifications, efficiency, price or platform features.
SUMMARY PROFILE
Verified-metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
IntelPerformance
Single-core
Multi-core
L3 cache
Efficiency
3722
9393
7878
11
2613
COMPARISON RESULT
Core Ultra 9 285 is the best overall choice
Core Ultra 9 285 leads in overall performance, while Core Ultra 9 285 offers better price-to-performance. Check results in your applications before making the final choice.
Core Ultra 9 285 leads in the combined performance index
Core 7 251E costs less
OVERALL SCORE
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
The Summary score section compares Core Ultra 9 285 and Core 7 251E with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
37Better
22
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
33Better
22
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
31Better
20
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
26Better
13
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
35Better
20
FULL COMPARISON
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
The Specifications section compares Core Ultra 9 285 and Core 7 251E with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
Release date2024—
Device classDesktopDesktop
PassMark57576Better34196
ArchitectureArrow LakeBartlett Lake
PBP / MTP65 / 177 W65 / 219 W
Integrated graphicsArc Xe2 64 2 GHzUHD 770 1,65 GHzBetter
Power consumption65 / 177 W65 / 219 W
Process node3 nmBetter10 nm (Intel 7)
Cores / Threads8P+16E / 248P+16E / 32
SocketLGA1851BetterLGA1700
Clock speedP 2,5 - 5,6 GHz / E 1,9 - 4,6 GHzBetterP 2,1 - 5,6 GHz / E 1,6 - 4,4 GHz
Base clock2500 MHzBetter2100 MHz
Boost clock5600 MHz5600 MHz
L1 cache112 KB per P-core, 96 KB per E-coreBetter80 KB per P-core, 96 KB per E-core
L2 cache3 MB per P-core, 4 MB per E-core clusterBetter2 MB per P-core, 4 MB per E-core cluster
L3 cache36 MB36 MB
Memory supportDDR5-6400DDR5-5600 / DDR4-3200
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
The Benchmarks section compares Core Ultra 9 285 and Core 7 251E with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
H2H Single-core IndexH2H Index / 10093930%
H2H Multi-core IndexH2H Index / 10078780%
H2H Productivity IndexH2H Index / 10071710%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 10063630%
H2H Value IndexH2H Index / 100000%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
The Detailed comparison section compares Core Ultra 9 285 and Core 7 251E with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
H2H ML Preprocessing IndexH2H Index / 100261648%
H2H CPU Inference IndexH2H Index / 100291752%
H2H Local LLM CPU IndexH2H Index / 100221351%
H2H Data Pipeline IndexH2H Index / 100301850%
H2H Computer Vision CPU IndexH2H Index / 100281749%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
AI EXPLAIN · HEAD TO HEAD
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
REAL CONFIGURATIONS
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
♢Moderator reviewed☆Helpful to the community🏅Expert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: Core Ultra 9 285 or Core 7 251E?+
Core Ultra 9 285 has the higher overall gaming score, while Core Ultra 9 285 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
Core Ultra 9 285 is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
Core Ultra 9 285 is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
Core Ultra 9 285 offers more overall performance, while Core Ultra 9 285 offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
Core Ultra 9 285 is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
Core Ultra 9 285 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
Core Ultra 9 285 leads in combined 1440p performance. Core Ultra 9 285 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
Core Ultra 9 285 is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
Core Ultra 9 285 is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
Core Ultra 9 285 is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to Core Ultra 9 285 if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.