Core Ultra 9 285
Xeon Platinum 8362
Core Ultra 9 285 vs Xeon Platinum 8362 Performance Spectrum
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Core Ultra 9 285 vs Xeon Platinum 8362 FPS Benchmarks
Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.
Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Among Us
Apex Legends
ARC Raiders
Baldur's Gate 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Core Ultra 9 285 vs Xeon Platinum 8362: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
Core Ultra 9 285
2025Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +19.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $5,647 less on MSRP ($589 MSRP vs $6,236 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 971.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 97.5 vs 9.1 PassMark/$ ($589 MSRP vs $6,236 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 265W, a 200W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of LGA4189 and DDR4.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (36 MB vs 48 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon Platinum 8362, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.
- ❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.
Xeon Platinum 8362
2021Why buy it
- ✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (48 MB vs 36 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 24.
- ✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 285 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (56,787 vs 57,442).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.1 vs 97.5 PassMark/$ ($6,236 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
- ❌307.7% higher power demand at 265W vs 65W.
- ❌Older platform position on LGA4189 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 9 285 moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.
Quick Answers
So, is Core Ultra 9 285 better than Xeon Platinum 8362?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Core Ultra 9 285 vs Xeon Platinum 8362 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.
Core Ultra 9 285
The Core Ultra 9 285 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in Janeiro 2025 (recentemente). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 24 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 5.5 GHz. L3 cache: 36 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 57,442 points. Launch price was $579.
Xeon Platinum 8362
The Xeon Platinum 8362 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2021-04-01. It is based on the Ice Lake-SP (2021) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 48 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4189. Thermal design power (TDP): 265 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 56,787 points. Launch price was $3,500.
Processing Power
The Core Ultra 9 285 packs 24 cores / 24 threads, while the Xeon Platinum 8362 offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the Xeon Platinum 8362 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.5 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 285 versus 3.6 GHz on the Xeon Platinum 8362 — a 41.8% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285 (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the Xeon Platinum 8362 uses Ice Lake-SP (2021) (10 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 57,442 against the Xeon Platinum 8362's 56,787 — a 1.1% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285. L3 cache: 36 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 9 285 vs 48 MB (total) on the Xeon Platinum 8362.
| Feature | Core Ultra 9 285 | Xeon Platinum 8362 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 24 / 24 | 32 / 64+33% |
| Boost Clock | 5.5 GHz+53% | 3.6 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz | 2.8 GHz+12% |
| L3 Cache | 36 MB (total) | 48 MB (total)+33% |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB (per core)+200% | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 3 nm-70% | 10 nm |
| Architecture | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) | Ice Lake-SP (2021) |
| PassMark | 57,442+1% | 56,787 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 40,000 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 3,000 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 20,000 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Core Ultra 9 285 uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon Platinum 8362 uses LGA4189 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 9 285 versus 3200 on the Xeon Platinum 8362 — the Core Ultra 9 285 supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon Platinum 8362 supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 2033.3% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 9 285) vs 8 (Xeon Platinum 8362). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 9 285) vs 64 (Xeon Platinum 8362) — the Xeon Platinum 8362 offers 40 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 800 Series (Core Ultra 9 285) and C621A (Xeon Platinum 8362).
| Feature | Core Ultra 9 285 | Xeon Platinum 8362 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1851 | LGA4189 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+25% | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6400+100% | 3200 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 192 GB | 4096 GB+2033% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 8+300% |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 24 | 64+167% |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Xeon Platinum 8362 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: Yes (Core Ultra 9 285) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon Platinum 8362). The Core Ultra 9 285 includes integrated graphics (Arc Graphics), while the Xeon Platinum 8362 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core Ultra 9 285 targets High-End Gaming. Direct competitor: Xeon Platinum 8362 rivals EPYC 7543.
| Feature | Core Ultra 9 285 | Xeon Platinum 8362 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Arc Graphics | None |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | Yes | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | High-End Gaming | — |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Core Ultra 9 285 was priced at $589, while the Xeon Platinum 8362 came in at $6236. On launch pricing ($589 vs $6236), Core Ultra 9 285 was $5647 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 9 285 delivers 97.5 pts/$ vs 9.1 pts/$ for the Xeon Platinum 8362 — making the Core Ultra 9 285 the 165.8% better value option.
| Feature | Core Ultra 9 285 | Xeon Platinum 8362 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $589-91% | $6236 |
| Performance per Dollar | 97.5+971% | 9.1 |
| Release Date | 2025 | 2021 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Core Ultra 9 285 and Xeon Platinum 8362
