Ultra 9 285 vs Athlon PRO 200GE
Primary details
Comparing Athlon PRO 200GE and Core Ultra 9 285 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1808 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Athlon | no data |
| Power efficiency | 6.27 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| Release date | 1 June 2018 (6 years ago) | January 2025 |
Detailed specifications
Athlon PRO 200GE and Core Ultra 9 285 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 24 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 5.6 GHz |
| Multiplier | 32 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 209.78 mm2 | 243 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 17,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon PRO 200GE and Core Ultra 9 285 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | AM4 | 1851 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon PRO 200GE and Core Ultra 9 285. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
Athlon PRO 200GE and Core Ultra 9 285 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon PRO 200GE and Core Ultra 9 285 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon PRO 200GE and Core Ultra 9 285. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR5 Depends on motherboard |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon Vega 3 | Arc Xe2 Graphics 64EU |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon PRO 200GE and Core Ultra 9 285.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 2 | 24 |
| Threads | 2 | 24 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 125 Watt |
Athlon PRO 200GE has 257.1% lower power consumption.
Ultra 9 285, on the other hand, has 1100% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Athlon PRO 200GE and Core Ultra 9 285. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon PRO 200GE and Core Ultra 9 285, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
