Core Ultra 9 285K vs Core Ultra 9 285HX
Head-to-head specifications
| Metric | Core Ultra 9 285K | Core Ultra 9 285HX | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cinebench 2024 single-core | 141 | 126 | +11.9% |
| Cinebench 2024 multi-core | 2,261 | 2,240 | +0.9% |
| Cores | 24 (8P+16E) | 24 (8P+16E) | — |
| TDP (base W) | 125 | 45 | — |
| PassMark CPU Mark | 67,256 | 57,166 | +17.7% |
- Core Ultra 9 285K is faster than Core Ultra 9 285HX by 11.9% in single-core and faster by 0.9% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
- Core Ultra 9 285HX draws less power (45W vs 125W base TDP).
Verdict: Core Ultra 9 285K or Core Ultra 9 285HX?
Core Ultra 9 285K advantages
- Single-core speed (+11%)
Core Ultra 9 285HX advantages
- Power efficiency (+64%)
Which should you choose?
- Choose the Core Ultra 9 285K if you mainly game or want snappy everyday responsiveness.
- Choose the Core Ultra 9 285HX if you want a cooler, quieter and more power-efficient build.
Core Ultra 9 285K vs Core Ultra 9 285HX: which should you choose?
Core Ultra 9 285K — 24-core Intel processor (8P+16E) scoring 141 single-core and 2261 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 125 W TDP and 36 MB L3 cache.
Core Ultra 9 285HX — 24-core Intel processor (8P+16E) scoring 126 single-core and 2240 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 45 W TDP.
Core Ultra 9 285K vs Core Ultra 9 285HX: Core Ultra 9 285K leads in multi-core performance. Core Ultra 9 285K is faster than Core Ultra 9 285HX by 11.9% in single-core and faster by 0.9% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra 9 285HX draws less power (45W vs 125W base TDP).
Gaming and single-threaded work
Games and everyday responsiveness lean on single-core speed. The Core Ultra 9 285K leads there with a single-core score of 141 versus 126, so it is the marginally better pick for high-refresh gaming — though at typical resolutions the GPU usually decides frame rates.
Content creation and multitasking
For rendering, compilation, video export and other all-core workloads, the Core Ultra 9 285K is stronger, posting 2,261 multi-core against 2,240 in Cinebench 2024. Its 24 cores (8 performance + 16 efficiency) give it real headroom for heavy parallel jobs.
Power and platform
The Core Ultra 9 285HX is the more efficient chip at 45 W versus 125 W, which means less heat, quieter cooling and lower running costs under sustained load.
The verdict
Both are credible choices in the processor comparison space; the specification table above lays out every metric so you can weigh the trade-offs that matter to you. Pick the one whose strengths line up with how you will actually use it.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Core Ultra 9 285K better than the Core Ultra 9 285HX?
Core Ultra 9 285K takes the overall edge, though Core Ultra 9 285HX wins in specific areas worth weighing. Core Ultra 9 285K is faster than Core Ultra 9 285HX by 11.9% in single-core and faster by 0.9% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
What is the main difference between the Core Ultra 9 285K and the Core Ultra 9 285HX?
Core Ultra 9 285K is faster than Core Ultra 9 285HX by 11.9% in single-core and faster by 0.9% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra 9 285HX draws less power (45W vs 125W base TDP).
Which should I choose?
Choose the Core Ultra 9 285K if you mainly game or want snappy everyday responsiveness. Choose the Core Ultra 9 285HX if you want a cooler, quieter and more power-efficient build.
Methodology
Processors are compared on Cinebench 2024 single-core and multi-core scores from published leaderboard results, alongside core configuration (performance + efficiency cores), base TDP, L3 cache, PassMark CPU Mark, 1080p gaming scores and street pricing where measured. Cinebench reflects rendering-style workloads; gaming performance depends heavily on the GPU and the specific title, so treat single-core standing as directional. Figures reflect the leaderboard snapshot on the page date.