Core Ultra 9 285HX vs EPYC 9135

CPU

GPU

Core Ultra 9 285HX

24 Cores24 Thrd55 WWMax: 5.5 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9135

16 Cores32 Thrd200 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Ultra 9 285HX

24 / 24

58,732

+1.6%

57,808

0.0%

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 285HX

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +22.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 55W instead of 200W, a 145W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Graphics, while EPYC 9135 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌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.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

EPYC 9135

2024

Why buy it

✅+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 285HX across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (57,808 vs 58,732).
❌Launch MSRP is still $1,214 MSRP, while Core Ultra 9 285HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌263.6% higher power demand at 200W vs 55W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 9 285HX can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core Ultra 9 285HX

2025

EPYC 9135

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +22.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 55W instead of 200W, a 145W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Graphics, while EPYC 9135 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅+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

❌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.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 285HX across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (57,808 vs 58,732).
❌Launch MSRP is still $1,214 MSRP, while Core Ultra 9 285HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌263.6% higher power demand at 200W vs 55W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 9 285HX can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 9 285HX 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 285HX is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core Ultra 9 285HX is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 22.3% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 9 285HX is the better fit. You are getting 1.6% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 24 threads.

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

Core Ultra 9 285HX is still the faster CPU overall, but EPYC 9135 makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Core Ultra 9 285HX is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $1,214 MSRP, and it gives you a 22.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. EPYC 9135 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (47.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Core Ultra 9 285HX is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2024) and more multi-core headroom with 24 cores / 24 threads instead of 16/32. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

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 285HX Benchmark Check

EPYC 9135 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285HX	EPYC 9135
1080p
low	312 FPS	172 FPS
medium	300 FPS	139 FPS
high	247 FPS	119 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	96 FPS
1440p
low	271 FPS	152 FPS
medium	229 FPS	120 FPS
high	175 FPS	99 FPS
ultra	154 FPS	81 FPS
4K
low	180 FPS	81 FPS
medium	151 FPS	69 FPS
high	112 FPS	55 FPS
ultra	101 FPS	45 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285HX Open EPYC 9135

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285HX	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 285HX Open EPYC 9135

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285HX	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 285HX Open EPYC 9135

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 9 285HX	EPYC 9135
1080p
low	1078 FPS	929 FPS
medium	959 FPS	846 FPS
high	841 FPS	732 FPS
ultra	757 FPS	660 FPS
1440p
low	862 FPS	735 FPS
medium	756 FPS	652 FPS
high	660 FPS	561 FPS
ultra	585 FPS	493 FPS
4K
low	635 FPS	524 FPS
medium	565 FPS	475 FPS
high	500 FPS	417 FPS
ultra	437 FPS	365 FPS

Open Core Ultra 9 285HX Open EPYC 9135

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

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

Core Ultra 9 285HX

The Core Ultra 9 285HX is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2025-01-01. It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 24 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 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: FCBGA2114. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 58,732 points. Launch price was $650.

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 285HX packs 24 cores / 24 threads, while the EPYC 9135 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Core Ultra 9 285HX has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.5 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 285HX versus 4.3 GHz on the EPYC 9135 — a 24.5% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285HX (base: 2.8 GHz vs 3.65 GHz). The Core Ultra 9 285HX 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 285HX scores 58,732 against the EPYC 9135's 57,808 — a 1.6% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285HX. L3 cache: 36 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 9 285HX vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 9135.

Feature	Core Ultra 9 285HX	EPYC 9135
Cores / Threads	24 / 24+50%	16 / 32
Boost Clock	5.5 GHz+28%	4.3 GHz
Base Clock	2.8 GHz	3.65 GHz+30%
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	58,732+2%	57,808
Geekbench 6 Single	3,106	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	22,200	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 9 285HX uses the FCBGA2114 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 285HX 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 285HX) vs 12 (EPYC 9135). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 9 285HX) vs 128 (EPYC 9135) — the EPYC 9135 offers 104 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel HM870 (Core Ultra 9 285HX) and SP5 (EPYC 9135).

Feature	Core Ultra 9 285HX	EPYC 9135
Socket	FCBGA2114	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

Only the Core Ultra 9 285HX has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the EPYC 9135 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: true (Core Ultra 9 285HX) vs VT-x, VT-d (EPYC 9135). The Core Ultra 9 285HX includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Graphics), while the EPYC 9135 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 9 285HX rivals Ryzen 9 7945HX3D; EPYC 9135 rivals Xeon Platinum 8558P.