AMD EPYC 4244P vs Intel Core Ultra 7 165H Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4244P and Intel Core Ultra 7 165H occupy vastly different market positions, yet their benchmark averages land nearly on top of each other. The EPYC 4244P posts an average benchmark score of 34,220, while the Intel part scores 34,083, a difference of just 0.4% in favor of the AMD chip. However, this aggregate parity hides a dramatic split in workload behavior: the AMD EPYC wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra wins only 3. The data paints a clear picture of two processors with distinct personalities, and the choice between them hinges entirely on which benchmarks matter most to the user.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking single result is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the AMD EPYC 4244P scores 23,089 against the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H's 14,551. That is a 58.7% advantage for the EPYC, an enormous margin that defines the multi-threaded narrative. The gap persists in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where AMD leads 9,697 to 9,233, a 5% edge. But the older Cinebench R15 multi-core test flips the script: Intel wins 2,641 to 2,327, an 11.9% advantage. This inconsistency across Cinebench versions suggests the Intel part's hybrid architecture behaves differently under varying workload types, while the AMD chip scales more predictably.

Single-core performance is not close. The AMD EPYC 4244P dominates Cinebench R23 single-core with 3,259 points versus 1,759 for Intel, a 85.3% lead. In Cinebench R20 single-core, AMD wins 1,368 to 1,303 (5% ahead), and in Cinebench R15 single-core, AMD leads 328 to 257, a 27.6% margin. PassMark single-thread results confirm the trend, with AMD at 3,710 and Intel at 3,509, a 5.7% advantage.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H's wins are concentrated in math-heavy PassMark workloads. Floating point math is a decisive Intel victory: 66,273 versus 45,546, a 31.3% gap. Integer math also goes to Intel, 89,415 to 78,709, a 12% lead. These two wins, combined with the Cinebench R15 multi-core result, represent Intel's only victories. The pattern is unmistakable: Intel wins raw arithmetic throughput, but AMD wins nearly everything else. PassMark physics goes to AMD by 9.7% (1,981 vs 1,806), and PassMark multithread goes to AMD by 3.3% (26,797 vs 25,933). Data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, and random string sorting all favor the EPYC, with margins ranging from 3.9% to 58.5%.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4244P is the clear choice for heavily threaded, cache-sensitive, and latency-critical workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core blowout (58.7% ahead) and prime number finding advantage (58.5% ahead) indicate exceptional scaling on integer-heavy parallel tasks. The EPYC also wins in extended instructions (28% ahead), random string sorting (13.7% ahead), and physics simulation (9.7% ahead). For server and workstation use cases that rely on data compression, encryption, and multithreaded throughput, the EPYC's 14 benchmark wins provide overwhelming evidence of superiority.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H wins specifically in floating point and integer math operations, where it leads by 31.3% and 12%, respectively. These are significant margins that matter for scientific computing, financial modeling, and any workload dominated by arithmetic. The Intel part's Cinebench R15 multi-core win (11.9%) is interesting but isolated; it does not carry over to newer Cinebench versions. For mobile users who prioritize math throughput over general multi-threading, the Core Ultra 7 165H offers a distinct advantage, but its wins are narrow and specialized.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The AMD EPYC 4244P uses Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, with 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H uses Meteor Lake architecture on Intel's 7 nm process, with 16 cores and 22 threads. Despite having nearly three times the core count, Intel loses most benchmarks, highlighting the efficiency of AMD's Zen 4 design.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The EPYC 4244P has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. Intel's part has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, but only 24 MB of shared L3. The larger L3 on AMD likely contributes to its wins in data compression (3.9% ahead) and random string sorting (13.7% ahead), where cache hit rates matter.

Socket and platform differences are fundamental. AMD uses Socket AM5 with 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, while Intel uses BGA 2049 with only 8 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The EPYC supports ECC memory; the Core Ultra does not. Memory bandwidth is close, with AMD at 83.2 GB/s and Intel at 89.6 GB/s, both dual-channel DDR5. Process node and foundry also differ: TSMC 5 nm for AMD versus Intel 7 nm for Intel, with AMD packing 6,570 million transistors into a 71 mm² die. Intel lists no transistor count or die size. Both chips have integrated graphics — Radeon Graphics on AMD, Arc Xe-LPG 128EU on Intel — but the EPYC's market segment is Server/Workstation while the Core Ultra is Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 4244P has an average benchmark score of 34,220, compared to 34,083 for the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H, a 0.4% difference. Both sit at the 84th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap?

A: The AMD EPYC 4244P leads by 85.3% in Cinebench R23 single-core (3,259 vs 1,759) and by 27.6% in Cinebench R15 single-core (328 vs 257). PassMark single-thread shows a smaller 5.7% edge for AMD.

Q: In what tests does the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H win?

A: Intel wins in floating point math (66,273 vs 45,546, a 31.3% lead), integer math (89,415 vs 78,709, a 12% lead), and Cinebench R15 multi-core (2,641 vs 2,327, an 11.9% lead). These are the only three wins out of 17 head-to-head tests.

Q: Do the core counts reflect performance?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H has 16 cores and 22 threads, while the AMD EPYC 4244P has only 6 cores and 12 threads. Despite this, AMD wins 14 of 17 benchmarks, including Cinebench R23 multi-core by 58.7%.

Q: What are the memory and expansion differences?

A: Both support dual-channel DDR5, but AMD offers 83.2 GB/s bandwidth with ECC support, while Intel offers 89.6 GB/s without ECC. AMD provides 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, while Intel provides only 8.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 4244P boosts to 5.10 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H boosts to 5.00 GHz. Both have a base clock of 3.80 GHz.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 4244P | Intel Core Ultra 7 165H |

|---|---|---|

| Series | EPYC 4004 series | Core Ultra Series 1 |

| Cores | 6 | 16 |

| Threads | 12 | 22 |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 28 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel BGA 2049 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Meteor Lake |

| Process Node | 5 nm (TSMC) | 7 nm (Intel) |

| Transistors | 6,570 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 71 mm² | Not listed |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 112 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 32 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe Lanes | 28 (Gen 5) | 8 (Gen 5) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG 128EU |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | $229 | $460 |

| Release Date | 2024-05-20 | 2023-12-13 |

The Verdict

The data leads to a decisive conclusion: the AMD EPYC 4244P is the superior processor for almost every measurable workload. With 14 wins out of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, including a 58.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and an 85.3% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC delivers overwhelming performance advantages in both single-threaded and heavily threaded scenarios. Its lower launch MSRP of $229 (versus $460 for Intel) is noteworthy, though the fact remains that performance speaks for itself.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H should only be chosen by users whose workloads are dominated by floating point or integer math, where it leads by 31.3% and 12%, respectively. Its mobile form factor (BGA 2049 socket, 28 W TDP) and integrated Arc graphics make it a plausible laptop processor, but the benchmark data shows it cannot compete with the EPYC on general throughput. The EPYC's ECC support, 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, and larger L3 cache further cement its position for server and workstation use. In a straight comparison, the AMD EPYC 4244P is the clear winner, with the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H offering only narrow, math-specific advantages.