Core Ultra 9 285 vs EPYC 9135

CPU

GPU

Core Ultra 9 285

24 Cores24 Thrd65 WWMax: 5.5 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9135

16 Cores32 Thrd200 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Ultra 9 285

24 / 24

57,442

0.0%

57,808

+0.6%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

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.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Core Ultra 9 285

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +22.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $625 less on MSRP ($589 MSRP vs $1,214 MSRP).
✅Delivers 104.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 97.5 vs 47.6 PassMark/$ ($589 MSRP vs $1,214 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 200W, a 135W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Arc Graphics, while EPYC 9135 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (57,442 vs 57,808).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (36 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9135, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 9135

2024

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅+77.8% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 36 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅433.3% more PCIe lanes (128 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 per dollar, at 47.6 vs 97.5 PassMark/$ ($1,214 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
❌207.7% higher power demand at 200W vs 65W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 9 285 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core Ultra 9 285

2025

EPYC 9135

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +22.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $625 less on MSRP ($589 MSRP vs $1,214 MSRP).
✅Delivers 104.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 97.5 vs 47.6 PassMark/$ ($589 MSRP vs $1,214 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 200W, a 135W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Arc Graphics, while EPYC 9135 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅+77.8% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 36 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅433.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (57,442 vs 57,808).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (36 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9135, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 285 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 47.6 vs 97.5 PassMark/$ ($1,214 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
❌207.7% higher power demand at 200W vs 65W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 9 285 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 9 285 better than EPYC 9135?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9135 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 9 285 is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 9135 is the better fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 77.8% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 36 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core Ultra 9 285 is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 9 285 is $625 cheaper on MSRP at $589 MSRP versus $1,214 MSRP, and it gives you a 22.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that EPYC 9135 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.6% better PassMark. It is also 104.8% better value on MSRP (97.5 vs 47.6 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core Ultra 9 285 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2024). That makes it the safer long-term pick.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core Ultra 9 285 Benchmark Check

EPYC 9135 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285	EPYC 9135
1080p
low	309 FPS	172 FPS
medium	299 FPS	139 FPS
high	246 FPS	119 FPS
ultra	208 FPS	96 FPS
1440p
low	269 FPS	152 FPS
medium	228 FPS	120 FPS
high	175 FPS	99 FPS
ultra	154 FPS	81 FPS
4K
low	179 FPS	81 FPS
medium	151 FPS	69 FPS
high	112 FPS	55 FPS
ultra	101 FPS	45 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285 Open EPYC 9135

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285	EPYC 9135
1080p
low	802 FPS	496 FPS
medium	700 FPS	439 FPS
high	565 FPS	341 FPS
ultra	495 FPS	293 FPS
1440p
low	682 FPS	427 FPS
medium	614 FPS	382 FPS
high	505 FPS	309 FPS
ultra	408 FPS	248 FPS
4K
low	382 FPS	267 FPS
medium	349 FPS	242 FPS
high	326 FPS	211 FPS
ultra	283 FPS	183 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285 Open EPYC 9135

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285	EPYC 9135
1080p
low	866 FPS	729 FPS
medium	708 FPS	607 FPS
high	628 FPS	552 FPS
ultra	537 FPS	489 FPS
1440p
low	744 FPS	559 FPS
medium	611 FPS	463 FPS
high	529 FPS	415 FPS
ultra	453 FPS	362 FPS
4K
low	527 FPS	407 FPS
medium	446 FPS	325 FPS
high	403 FPS	287 FPS
ultra	344 FPS	232 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285 Open EPYC 9135

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285	EPYC 9135
1080p
low	1075 FPS	929 FPS
medium	957 FPS	846 FPS
high	839 FPS	732 FPS
ultra	754 FPS	660 FPS
1440p
low	860 FPS	735 FPS
medium	754 FPS	652 FPS
high	659 FPS	561 FPS
ultra	583 FPS	493 FPS
4K
low	633 FPS	524 FPS
medium	564 FPS	475 FPS
high	499 FPS	417 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	365 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285 Open EPYC 9135

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 9 285 and EPYC 9135

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.

EPYC 9135

The EPYC 9135 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.65 GHz, with boost up to 4.3 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 57,808 points. Launch price was $1,214.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 9 285 packs 24 cores / 24 threads, while the EPYC 9135 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Core Ultra 9 285 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.5 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 285 versus 4.3 GHz on the EPYC 9135 — a 24.5% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285 (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.65 GHz). The Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 9135 uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 57,442 against the EPYC 9135's 57,808 — a 0.6% lead for the EPYC 9135. L3 cache: 36 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 9 285 vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 9135.

Feature	Core Ultra 9 285	EPYC 9135
Cores / Threads	24 / 24+50%	16 / 32
Boost Clock	5.5 GHz+28%	4.3 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	3.65 GHz+46%
L3 Cache	36 MB (total)	64 MB (total)+78%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+200%	1 MB (per core)
Process	3 nm-25%	4 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)	Turin (2024)
PassMark	57,442	57,808
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 EPYC 9135 uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 9 285 versus 6000 on the EPYC 9135 — the EPYC 9135 supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9135 supports up to 6144 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 9 285) vs 12 (EPYC 9135). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 9 285) vs 128 (EPYC 9135) — the EPYC 9135 offers 104 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 800 Series (Core Ultra 9 285) and SP5 (EPYC 9135).

Feature	Core Ultra 9 285	EPYC 9135
Socket	LGA1851	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400	6000+119900%
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+3276700%	6144
RAM Channels	2	12+500%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	128+433%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the EPYC 9135 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: Yes (Core Ultra 9 285) vs VT-x, VT-d (EPYC 9135). The Core Ultra 9 285 includes integrated graphics (Arc Graphics), while the EPYC 9135 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core Ultra 9 285 targets High-End Gaming. Direct competitor: EPYC 9135 rivals Xeon Platinum 8558P.

Feature	Core Ultra 9 285	EPYC 9135
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

The Core Ultra 9 285 launched at $589 MSRP, while the EPYC 9135 debuted at $1214. On MSRP ($589 vs $1214), the Core Ultra 9 285 is $625 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 9 285 delivers 97.5 pts/$ vs 47.6 pts/$ for the EPYC 9135 — making the Core Ultra 9 285 the 68.8% better value option.