Core Ultra 9 285K vs M3 Ultra
Head-to-head specifications
| Metric | Core Ultra 9 285K | M3 Ultra | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cinebench 2024 single-core | 141 | 133 | +6.0% |
| Cinebench 2024 multi-core | 2,261 | 2,753 | -17.9% |
| Cores | 24 (8P+16E) | 32 (24P+8E) | — |
| TDP (base W) | 125 | 140 | — |
- Core Ultra 9 285K is faster than M3 Ultra by 6.0% in single-core and slower by 17.9% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
- Core Ultra 9 285K draws less power (125W vs 140W base TDP).
Verdict: Core Ultra 9 285K or M3 Ultra?
Core Ultra 9 285K advantages
- Single-core speed (+6%)
- Power efficiency (+11%)
M3 Ultra advantages
- Multi-core speed (+18%)
Which should you choose?
- Choose the Core Ultra 9 285K if you mainly game or want snappy everyday responsiveness.
- Choose the M3 Ultra if you render video, compile code or run heavy multitasking.
- Choose the Core Ultra 9 285K if you want a cooler, quieter and more power-efficient build.
Core Ultra 9 285K vs M3 Ultra: 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.
M3 Ultra — 32-core Apple processor (24P+8E) scoring 133 single-core and 2753 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 140 W TDP.
Core Ultra 9 285K vs M3 Ultra: M3 Ultra leads in multi-core performance. Core Ultra 9 285K is faster than M3 Ultra by 6.0% in single-core and slower by 17.9% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra 9 285K draws less power (125W vs 140W 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 133, 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 M3 Ultra is stronger, posting 2,753 multi-core against 2,261 in Cinebench 2024. Its 32 cores (24 performance + 8 efficiency) give it real headroom for heavy parallel jobs.
Power and platform
The Core Ultra 9 285K is the more efficient chip at 125 W versus 140 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 M3 Ultra?
These two are closely matched — the right pick comes down to which specific strengths you value and the price you actually pay. Core Ultra 9 285K is faster than M3 Ultra by 6.0% in single-core and slower by 17.9% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
What is the main difference between the Core Ultra 9 285K and the M3 Ultra?
Core Ultra 9 285K is faster than M3 Ultra by 6.0% in single-core and slower by 17.9% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra 9 285K draws less power (125W vs 140W base TDP).
Which should I choose?
Choose the Core Ultra 9 285K if you mainly game or want snappy everyday responsiveness. Choose the M3 Ultra if you render video, compile code or run heavy multitasking.
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.