\. I was surprised that the Ultra 9 275HX is so much "better" than the Ultra 9 285H. My common sense would think than the larger the number, the better it would be, right?
There are 3 variables in the Intel marketing schema to denote quality.
9 / 7 / 5 / 3. This was is often purely marketing, esp for Ultra 9 vs 7 designations.
275/285 (and formerly 2xxx/3xxx//.../15xxx. Each generation of cpu is marked here.
HX/H/K/etc. The subcategory for each generation.
HX = lots of cores, lots of performance, highly power draw and therefore power battery life.
H = good rather than great cpu performance, better power draw and battery life.
For your comparison, the HX > H is much more significant than the 285 > 275 bit. OTOH, if you had compared the 285HX to the 275 HX, more clearly better.
But you're overindexing on the total passmark value. For applications that can use all 24 cores, the HX going to whip the cpu with only 16, esp for functions that can benefit from the higher cache size. But some tasks are single core, or 4-8 threads max. The 285H also seems to have a better IGP. Also more capable for AI, FWIW.
But if ultimately your question is how will it run Premiere, then go look for benchmarks for Premiere.