EPYC 9135 vs Ultra 9 285

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core Ultra 9 285
2025
24 cores / 24 threads, 125 Watt
33.91
EPYC 9135
2024
16 cores / 32 threads, 200 Watt
36.26
+6.9%

EPYC 9135 outperforms Core Ultra 9 285 by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 9135 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking119102
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data29.53
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency25.8517.28
Architecture codenameArrow Lake-S (2024−2025)Turin (2024)
Release dateJanuary 2025 (recently)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$579$1,214

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 9135 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 cores24 (Tetracosa-Core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads2432
Base clock speed2.5 GHz3.65 GHz
Boost clock speed5.6 GHz4.3 GHz
L1 cache192 KB (per core)80 KB (per core)
L2 cache3 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache36 MB (shared)64 MB (shared)
Chip lithography3 nm4 nm
Die size243 mm22x 70.6 mm2
Number of transistors17,800 million16,630 million
64 bit support++

Compatibility

Information on Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 9135 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 configuration12
Socket1851SP5
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt200 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 9135. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
SIPP+-
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 9135 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 9135 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 Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 9135. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5 Depends on motherboardDDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardArc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EUN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 9135.

PCIe version5.05.0
PCI Express lanes20128

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Ultra 9 285 33.91
EPYC 9135 36.26
+6.9%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Ultra 9 285 54319
EPYC 9135 58070
+6.9%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.91 36.26
Physical cores 24 16
Threads 24 32
Chip lithography 3 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 200 Watt

Ultra 9 285 has 50% more physical cores, a 33.3% more advanced lithography process, and 60% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9135, on the other hand, has a 6.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 33.3% more threads.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 9135.

Note that Core Ultra 9 285 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9135 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 9135, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core Ultra 9 285
Core Ultra 9 285
AMD EPYC 9135
EPYC 9135

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.4 76 votes

Rate Core Ultra 9 285 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 9135 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core Ultra 9 285 or EPYC 9135, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.